
Class f?>L2 25 
Book.^ . '^ ^ 



GpiglitB? 



qz 



COEXRIGHT DEPOSm 



WHENCE CAME THE 
UNIVE RSE ? 

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF CREATION 

SECOND ISSUE 

First Issued under the Title "Creation Ex Nihilo: The Physical 
Universe a Finite and Temporal Entity" 

BY 

L. FRANKLIN GRUBER, D.D., LL.D. 

Author of "The Theory of a Finite and Developing Deity Examiiied," 

"The Creative Days," "The Truth About Tyndale's 

New Testament," etc. 

WITH A FOREWORD BY 

G. FREDERICK WRIGHT, LL.D., F.G.S.A. 




BOSTON 

RICHARD G. BADGER 

THE GORHAM PRESS 



Copyright, 1918 and 1921, by L. Franklin Gruber 



All Rights Reserved 






^^TS^ 



m 



_/; ',921 



Made in the United States of America 



The Gorham Press, Boston, U. S. A. 

©aA658127 



ERRATA 

Page 94, line 5 from bottom, read an infinite to a finite^ in- 
stead of a finite to an infinite. 
Page 150, line 18, read separated^ instead q{ separately. 
Page 178, line 6 from bottom, read eternal^ instead oi external. 
Page 213, line 2, read negative, instead of positive. 
Page 259, line 4 from bottom, read ^4,^00, instead of j8oo. 
Page 294, line 25, read possible, instead of possibly. 



FOREWORD 



If the men of science could distinguish between their legiti- 
mate scientific conclusions and their metaphysical speculations, 
and if Christian apologists were less ready than some of them 
are to set limits to the realm of secondary causes, Science and 
Religion would have no difficulty in lying down together without 
either being incorporated in the other. Professor Asa Gray 
occupied a position in the scientific world scarcely second to any 
other authority. Yet he had no difficulty in accepting, on the 
one hand, the Nicene Creed, and, on the other, the Darwinian 
theory of the origin of species through natural selection. But 
this did not interfere with his implicit belief of a pervasive design 
in nature. One of his latest publications was entitled "Dar- 
winian Teleology," in which he showed conclusively that, how- 
ever much the Darwinian theory might extend the action of 
natural causes, it could not supersede the necessity of a design- 
ing mind to set those causes in operation, and to direct their 
course. The greater and more com.plicated the machinery to 
produce definite results, the greater and more complicated is the 
design, calling for a more exalted conception of the designer. 
A book printed by the linotype process involves even more evi- 
dence of design than one printed from separate type set up by 
hand. 

The men of science properly deal only with secondary causes, 
from observation of which they draw conclusions of more or 
less probability with reference to conditions both past and future. 
Their investigations never lead them to ultimate facts. It is 
still as true as ever that, however much you may lengthen the 
chain of natural causes, you cannot reach the ultimate link that 
fastens it to its permanent support. 

With regard to the ultimate source of the universe of sec- 
ondaiy causes, only three suppositions are possible : ( i ) that the 
self-existent eternal cause was spiritual and personal; (2) that 
it was material; and (3) that both spiritual and material 
essences were self-existent and eternal. The man of science who 
assumes that the self-existent cause of all things was material, 



2 Foreword 

instead of simplifying the mystery of existence has gratuitously 
multiplied it ; for, out of purely material forces, he must develop 
personality and design — qualities that do not inhere in material 
particles and forces. If, on the other hand, he assumes the 
self -existence of both spiritual and material essences, he has 
made a gratuitous supposition which makes his mystery three- 
fold ; for it involves the mystery of the union of the two inde- 
pendent, self-existent, ultimate causes. Whereas the theist uni- 
fies the mystery (which is a scientific process), and finds in sec- 
ondary causes (which on examination seem to be more and 
more spiritual) the handiwork of the Creator — too complicated, 
indeed, for us to fully understand, but whose nature can be easily 
apprehended by faith. In these secondary causes we can clearly 
"find God," though we cannot by any means "find Him out." 

It is gratifying in these times of ephemeral publications to get 
hold of a treatise which goes to the bottom of the matter, 
which is not content with mere generalities but ferrets out all 
the ambiguities, fallacies, and non-sequiturs of atheism, material- 
ism, monism, and agnosticism and brings them to the test of 
the most recent and most reasonable scientific conceptions of the 
universe. The author is specially strong in the use of the facts 
which demonstrate the finite and temporal character of the 
universe and the evidences of design apparent both in organic 
and inorganic nature. The work displays profound and most 
complete knowledge of the latest theories of astronomy, chem- 
istry, physics, and biology. 

We have followed with greatest interest the argument of 
Dr. Gruber in the present volume, and can most highly com- 
mend it for its comprehensiveness, and for the skill which is 
shown in stating the arguments for Theism, and in answering 
the supposed objections which have been raised by modern 
scientific discoveries. The volume commends itself equally to 
theologians and to men of science, and if read will do much to 
bring these classes together on a plane where they can reason 
together without animosity and work together in the promotion 
of the common ends of science and religion. 

G. Frederick Wright. 
Oberlin, Ohio, 
July 25, IQ17 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

Foreword . . i 

Introduction 9 

I Theories as to the Origin of the Universe . . . .15 
I Several Speculative Theories Briefly Stated . . 15 
II Scriptural Idea of Creation Ex Nihilo — A Transcen- 
dental One .19 

I Man's Limitations as to the Conception of Such 

an Idea 19 

z Man's Limitations as to the Expression of Such an 

Idea 24 

II Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate . 28 
I As to Inorganic Nature 28 

1 The Reasoning or Method and the Spirit of 

Materialism Anti-Theistic 29 

2 The Premises of Materialism Matters of In- 

definite Unfounded Scientific Faith ... 32 

II As to Organic Nature 35 

I According to Materialism, Life and Mind Only 

Forms or Results of Energy . . . .36 

3 A Life-Pervaded Organism Essentially Different 

from an Inanimate Crystallization ... 38 

3 The Supposed Cosmozoic Origin of Terrestrial 

Life Examined 42 

4 The Cosmozoic Hypothesis Inadequate to Explain 

Life's Ultimate Origin 45 

5 The Theory of Spontaneous Generation Examined 

and Found Inadequate 47 

6 The Theory of Nature as a Living Organism In- 

adequate to Account for Life .... 50 

7 Materialism's Necessary Fatalism Fatal to Itself 52 
III Three Postulates as to a First and Necessarily Eternal 

Existence 55 

I Postulate of Eternal Co-Existence of Spirit and Mat- 
ter Untenable 55 

II Postulate of Eternal Existence of Matter Alone Un- 
tenable . 56 

1 This Postulate Implies a Contradictory Multiplic- 

ity of First Causes 59 

2 This Postulate Implies the Impossibility that All 

Energy, Life and Mind Have Sprung from 
Matter 61 

A Arguments for Eternity of Matter Equally 

Valid for Eternity of Life and Mind . . 62 

B More than Matter in the Universe ... 64 

3 



4 Contents 

CHAPTER PAGE 

C Matter an Inadequate Cause to Produce Life 

and Mind 6$ 

D Life and Mind Necessarily from an Im- 
material Supernatural, or Spiritual, Source 67 
3 This Postulate Implies that the Physical Universe 

Is Infinite, Which Is Contrary to Fact . . 69 
III Postulate of Eternal Existence of Spirit Alone Tenable 

and True 70 

IV The Physical Universe Finite and Temporal and There- 
fore A Creature — Evidence from Dependence . . 75 
I Evidence from Apparently Simultaneous or Syn- 
chronous Dependence, Proving an Independent 
and Absolute Upholder 77 

1 No Series of Supports and Dependences Infinite . 78 

2 Action of Gravitation an Evidence of Finiteness 

and Dependence '79 

II Evidence from Successive or Chronological Depend- 
ence, Necessitating an Uncaused Eternal Origina- 
tor . . . ^ 80 

1 The Law Governing Secondary Causes Illustrated 81 

2 All Series of Secondary Causes Finite, Leading 

Up to an Infinite First Cause .... 83 

3 The Existence of One Absolute First Cause a 

Necessary Postulate of Reason .... 84 

III Some Important and Necessary Deductions as to the 

First Cause 87 

1 The Absolute, Partially Knowable, First Cause 

One, Continually Sustaining All Things . . 88 

2 Whatever the Theory of Creation, Its Cause a 

Supreme Personality ... ... 90 

3 Summary of Conclusions as to the First Cause of 

All Things 92 

IV Several Objections Answered 93 

V The Physical Universe Finite and Temporal, and There- 
fore A Creature — Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic 

Whole 100 

I Great Thinkers on the Extent of the Universe . . 101 

II The Physical Universe, Regarded as a Unitary Sys- 
tem, Necessarily Finite 103 

III Evidence of Finiteness in the General Distribution 

and Apparent Number of the Stars . . .110 

IV Evidence of Finiteness in the Stellar Motions . . 118 
V Evidence of Finiteness in the Aggregate Light of the 

Stars 126 

1 Extent of Universe for Number of Stars to be 

Equal to Number of Star Cross-Sections in 
Surface of Bounding Sphere .... 128 

2 Approximate Extent of Universe for Stars (Den- 

sity as in Known Universe), without Occulta- 
tions, Completely to Cover Celestial Sphere . 136 



Contents 5 

CHAPTER PAGE 

3 No Infinite Extent of Universe Thus Necessary 

under Any Condition of Distribution . . 139 

4 Actual and Comparative Amount of Light Re- 

ceived from All the Stars 141 

5 Objection from Hypothetical Light Interference 

Answered . . . . . . . . 145 

VI The Aggregation of Any Indefinite Number of So- 

Called Universes Also Finite 146 

VII The Aggregate Matter of the Universe Necessarily 

Finite 154 

VIII The Extent of the Containing Space of the Universe 160 

vi evroence from the physically temporal nature of the 
Universe that it Had a Beginning and Therefore 

THAT IT Was Created 168 

I A Universal Paralysis in Nature Impending . . 168 

1 Apparent Dissipation of Energy and Its Inevit- 

able Result 168 

2 This Conclusion Not Altered by the Theory of 

Stellar Consolidations 171 

3 The Law of the Conservation of Energy Ex- 

amined 173 

4 The Theory of an Infinite Quantity of Energy 

Considered 178 

II A Beginning in the Past Evident from the Present 

Operations of Nature's Laws .... 180 

1 Evolution Must Necessarily Imply a Beginning of 

Its Operation i8o 

2 The Theory of Repeating or Successive Universes 

Inadequate 183 

3 Our Conclusion Not Changed by Making the 

Ether the Final Realm of Energy . . . 186 

VII Evidence from the Nature of Matter Itself that the 

Physical Universe Is a Temporal Entity . . , 189 

I The Atomic or Particle Theory of Matter . . , 192 

II The Centre-of-Force Theory of Matter , . . 195 

III The Vortex-Atom Theory of Matter . . . .197 

IV The Electrical Theory of Matter 200 

1 Steps in the Discovery of Radium .... 200 

2 The Various Rays of Radium .... 202 

3 Radioactivity Due to Disintegration of Atoms, 

Successive Disintegrations Resulting in Dif- 
ferent Substances 204 

4 Disintegration or Devolution Probably Universal 

in Nature 207 

5 The Corpuscle or Electron and the Ultimate 

Nature of Matter 209 

6 The Positive Electrical Element in the Atom . 211 

7 The Universe Necessarily Temporal According to 

This Theory of Matter . . , . . 213 



6 Contents 

CHAPTER PAGE 

V The Ether Theory of Matter 2i6 

1 The More Generally Accepted Theory as to the 

Nature of the Ether 217 

2 The Ether and So-Called Ponderable Matter 

According to This Theory .... 218 

3 The Material Universe Temporal upon the Basis 

of This Theory of the Ether .... 220 

4 Theory Making the Ether the Only, or at Least 

the Denser, Materiality 221 

5 The Physical Universe Temporal as to Both Its 

Matter and Its Ether 223 

6 The Ether and Energy — Monism's Creative Di- 

vinity 225 

7 The Inevitable Conclusion from the Ether Theory 

of Matter 229 

VI Conclusion in Summary: The Universe Temporal 

According to All These Theories of Matter . . 230 

VIII Evidence from Design in Nature, Necessarily Implying 

ITS Creation in Time by a Designing Cause or Creator 233 
I The Objection against the Idea of Design in Nature 

Answered . . 235 

II Design Manifest in Every Living Organism , . 239 

III Design Manifest in Every Part and Every Law of In- 

organic Nature 242 

1 The Constitutive Particles of Cosmic Nature Like 

Manufactured Articles 242 

2 Evidence of Resign in Chemical Union and the 

"Periodic Law" 246 

3 Everything Apparently in Ceaseless Motion Ac- 

cording to Fixed Laws 250 

4 Atoms Themselves like Purposeful Miniature 

Stellar Systems of the Infinitesimal Universe . 252 

5 The Vast Energy in the Universe an Unmistak- 

able Evidence of Purpose 259 

6 Design in Every Vibration from an Object Per- 

ceived to the Perceiving Being .... 263 

IV General Adaptations and Provisions in Nature as 

Evidences of Design 266 

V Not Chance, but Law Reigns — ^The Modus Operandi 

of an Intelligent Personality 269 

VI The Apparent Purpose of Creation .... 274 

IX Testimony of the Scriptures as to Creation in Accord 

WITH THE Evidence from Nature ..... 277 
I Direct Testimony of the Scriptures that the Uni- 
verse Is God-Created 279 

II Two Fundamental Postulates or Axiomatic Truths of 

the Scriptures 280 

III The Three Absolute Creations of the Scriptures . . 283 

IV The Evident Conclusion 285 



Contents 7 

CHAPTER PAGE 

X Conclusion : No Real Conflict between True Science and 

Revelation 387 

I Their Spheres Totally Different 287 

II Physical Science Not Directly Concerned with the 

Origin of Nature ....... 293 

III The Apparent Conflict Due to Unproved Premises 

and Unwarranted Conclusions .... 294 

IV True Science and Philosophy as Witnesses for Reve- 

lation 297 

V A Place for Faith in Science, as Well as in Religion 298 
VI Nature and Revelation United in Testifying to Their 

Common Origin 301 

Index 305 



INTRODUCTION 

To the thoughtful mind the questions, Whence? What? Why? 
and Whitherf spontaneously suggest themselves on every side. 
The subjects of the origin j being , purpose and destiny of man 
and nature, have therefore In all ages occupied the minds of 
men. Indeed all philosophy Is an attempt to ansvv^er these 
great questions. The first of them, that of the whence, or of 
origin, lies back of the other three and In a sense Involves them. 
It constitutes the subject to be considered In this book. 

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT 

Has the universe existed from eternity, or w^as it, even as to 
Its material or substance, created by a Divinity In time, or at 
time's beginning? This Is the real question. To one w^ho has 
arrived at the conclusion that the universe has existed from 
eternity, there Is but a step to every possible negation, from 
the denial of a miracle to confirmed atheism. To one w^ho has 
become convinced that it w^as created, even as to its material 
or substance, by the Christian's God, everything else, from the 
simplest miracle to the crow^ning miracle of the Incarnation of 
the Son of God, is as nothing for faith to grasp and even for 
reason to accept. 

If a miracle be defined as an event in nature that cannot 
be explained by the ordinary law^s of nature, then the estab- 
lishing of the fact of the creation of the universe, ex nihilo or 
out of nothing — as this event must have antedated existing 
nature and therefore nature's laws — should be of supreme Im- 
portance to both faith and reason. By the very definition of a 
miracle, such a creation must have been the great primal or 
fundamental miracle, transcending and Indeed Involving all 
accredited miracles In created nature. 

Thus, the fact of the creation of the universe ex nihilo being 
accepted, that of all other Biblical miracles becomes not only 



10 Introduction 

possible to faith, but also acceptable to reason. Between such 
creation and its perhaps even more wonderful counterpart, the 
Incarnation, all other miracles, in addition to their immediate 
purpose, should serve also as striking illustrations of continued 
Divine immanence. 

Hence, as this subject has often stood out as a chief point 
or occasion of difference between what might in a general way 
be called the Academy and the Church, or supposedly between 
nature and accredited Revelation, it is one of supreme im- 
portance to both science and religion. 

But even apart from this scientific and religious, or scien- 
tifico-religious, importance of the subject, it has also a more 
purely philosophic side, as we have indicated in our intro- 
ductory paragraph, that appeals to every searcher after truth 
and every thoughtful reader. Therefore, even from the purely 
intellectual — or we might say, scientifico-philosophic — side, the 
subject is one of absorbing interest. 

SCOPE AND TREATMENT 

It does not come within the scope of this work to discuss the 
particular manner of creation by a Deity, whether it was in- 
stantaneously or gradually, virtually by one act or by a long 
series of repeated acts, wholly directly or chiefly through sec- 
ondary causes. Nor do the creative days of the first chapter 
of Genesis enter into our consideration. The chief purpose of 
this work is to prove that the universe of matter and its cor- 
relate energy, together with life, must necessarily have been 
created out of nothing by a supreme or absolute Personality. 
And it is, therefore, the fact, not the manner nor the time, of 
that primal creation that here chiefly concerns us. 

Nor do the Christian Scriptures enter much into our dis- 
cussion, as we are addressing ourselves more especially to that 
apparently growing class of people who will not accept the 
Scriptures by themselves as credible evidence. In reasoning with 
such upon such a subject, it is only fair to them that we should 
waive, or at least withhold, the evidence which to them is not 
acceptable. It is, therefore, necessary to meet them upon the 
basis of their own premises of reasoning. And, indeed, as the 
very intellectual atmosphere is becoming more and more scien- 
tific, it is not only the professional men of science, but also 



Introduction II 

those with an acquired scientific attitude, that look for scien- 
tific evidence. Hence, it is this evidence for a creation ex 
nihilo by a transcendent Deity, not that of the Christian Scrip* 
tures, that we are endeavoring to present. We are here placing 
science, not Scripture, upon the witness stand. And, even much 
less so are we in this work setting forth or defending the de- 
tailed Christian facts of the Scriptures, as a development of the 
more specifically Christian evidences. The setting forth of 
these facts in the light of all the evidence of present scholar- 
ship, requires a separate volume and a different method of 
treatment. 

And yet, after scientifically establishing, from the evidence 
from nature itself, the fact of a creation ex nihilo, by a su- 
preme Deity, it is also only fair to the Christian view-point to 
show that the evidence of the Christian Scriptures matches this 
evidence from nature. This is rather the reverse of the usual 
method of approaching the scientific searcher after truth or the 
honest doubter, but it should need no argument to prove 
it to be the only proper method. An unscientific Christian — if 
we might use such terminology — would have a right to expect 
to be convinced, if conviction were attempted, from his own 
view-point, that a certain scientific fact is not in conflict with 
Revelation. So a physical scientist — or an individual with a 
scientific attitude toward truth — who has honest doubts, has a 
right to expect to be convinced, if conviction is attempted, upon 
his own premises of reasoning, that a certain Scriptural doctrine 
is not in conflict with scientific fact. This must, therefore, 
be kept in mind by the reader, as, step by step, we endeavor 
to prove, from established and assumed premises of science, 
that nature really agrees with Revelation in its testimony for 
a creation ex nihilo. Fully believing in the "round table," our 
invitation is, Come, let us reason together. 

It is, therefore, because we are reasoning from the view- 
point of the scientific thinker, that even many of the as yet un- 
proved scientific theories are made to bear upon our subject 
and are treated as though they were or expressed scientific facts. 
And, thus, in addition to showing that established science really 
testifies to a creation of the universe ex nihilo, our argument 
also proves that even the more speculative theories of science 
point in the same inevitable direction. Hence, the evident in- 
ference should be that all the indications of the present develop- 



12 Introduction 

ments of science point to the same absolute creation by an ab- 
solute sovereign Personality as is so manifestly set forth in the 
Christian Scriptures. 

Many of the arguments against the anti-theistic conceptions 
of the universe herein set forth, are a development of arguments 
repeatedly employed by the wx'ittr in reasoning vj'ixh scien- 
tific and other honest doubters, as w^ell as w^ith self-confessed 
pronounced atheists. As those arguments, in actual discussion, 
wext found to be unanswerable, they w^ere briefly set forth in 
short papers, as well as in occasional addresses on the evidences 
for God in nature. And, now, in this volume they are more 
fully elaborated for wider application. 

It should be said also that, for the sake of completeness, cer- 
tain very important points at least partially enter into the argu- 
ment of more than one chapter. But, all unnecessary repe- 
tition is avoided. In the interests of fuller illustration and 
greater emphasis of some points here and there only briefly 
made, the reader is, however, occasionally referred to other 
chapters, in which such points or arguments are more fully de- 
veloped. 

Throughout the whole, the aim has been clearness in argu- 
ment no less than perspicuity in language. And, although even 
the latest scientific theories necessarily figure prominently in 
the discussions, these are, we believe, made as intelligible as is 
ordinarily possible in the case of such subjects. Indeed, for this 
very reason, some of these theories are developed somewhat 
more at length than should ordinarily be necessary in such 
a treatise, so as to make their application in our argument 
all the more definite and convincing also to the scientifically 
untrained mind. 

Moreover, where mathematics enters into our arguments, 
only such applications of it are made as are necessary to make 
our points definite and clear. But all its higher functions and 
applications are avoided. And, indeed, should any of our read- 
ers not wish even to follow certain of these mathematical 
demonstrations, they will still have the satisfaction of seeing 
the results or conclusions reached. After all, the chief interest 
in such a discussion lies in the fact that a certain inevitable 
result or conclusion must follow from certain accepted prem- 
ises, rather than how that result is attained. And yet, al- 
though we might thus have given only the conclusions of such 



Introduction 13 

processes of reasoning, for more certain conviction we let the 
processes, in an abbreviated form, appear with their conclu- 
sions. Thus, we believe that our argument for the creation 
of the universe out of nothing by a supreme spiritual Person- 
alit}^ — Whom the Christian adores as God — will be simple 
enough for the average reader and yet have some inter- 
est for the man of science, while we trust it will bring 
conviction to both. Care has been exercised to avoid errors; 
but some may nevertheless have crept in. 

And now, with the invitation to the various classes of 
readers. Come, let us reason together, we shall send forth this 
volume on its intended mission, submitting its contents to their 
careful consideration and candid judgment. 

L. F. G. 

St. Paul, Minnesota 
June, l^i*/ 



CREATION EX NIHILO 



CREATION EX NIHILO - 



CHAPTER I 

THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE 
UNIVERSE 

It may be said, in a general way, that there are two distinct 
views as to the possible origin of the universe. According to 
the one, it was a creation or a development from an eternally 
existing substance or stuff, whether that substance be considered 
as the essence of an ever-operating Divinity, or as eternal mat- 
ter operated upon by an external Divinity or developed by 
some supposed inherent potentialities. According to the other, 
it was a creation out of nothing in time, or at time's begin- 
ning, by the omnific will of an eternal and absolute Creator. 
And the former of these views, more especially, comprises a 
number of somewhat different theories. 



I SEVERAL SPECULATIVE THEORIES BRIEFLY 
STATED 

The theories of the origin of the universe that have been 
offered by unenlightened human reason, are numerous; but 
they may for all practical purposes be divided into several dis- 
tinct groups. It is not necessary for our purpose, however, to 
consider all of them, nor here to discuss even any one of them 
in detail. 

According to the Hindu Rig- Veda, the universe was origi- 
nally a confused chaotic darkness, which the great originator or 
god first dispelled and then created water with its seed of light. 
Out of this seed he developed a golden egg, in which Brahma 
sat a year in meditation; and, finally breaking it, he made 

15 



i6 Creation Ex Nihilo 

heaven and earth out of its two halves. According to mod- 
ern materialism, the universe had no beginning. But it is re- 
garded as the result of an endless series of developments from 
itself by its own inherent energy. The former may be said to 
put the hen first ; the latter apparently puts the egg first, gener- 
ally even to the denial of the existence of the hen. 

As we have given the theory of the Rig- Veda for Eastern 
philosophic speculation, we shall also let several authorities 
speak for Western philosophic science. Upon the subject of 
the supposed cosmic development, Ernst Haeckel, the great 
champion of monistic philosophy, has expressed himself in the 
following words: *'By this [Monism] we unambiguously 
express our conviction that there lives 'one spirit in all things,* 
and that the whole cognizable world is constituted, and has 
been developed, in accordance with one common fundamental 
law. We emphasize by it, in particular, the essential unity of 
inorganic and organic nature, the latter having been evolved 
from the former only at a relatively later period" {Monism as 
Connecting Religion and Science, 1894, P- 3o). And this 
development is, of course, assumed to have been or be an eternal 
process, as expressed by A. W. Bickerton in the following state- 
ment: "Agencies were found that elevated dissipating energy, 
and others that tended to disperse matter, until a complete 
mechanism disclosed itself; that rendered it possible that we 
exist in a cyclic scheme of creation, in which there is no evi- 
dence of a beginning or promise of an end, but a cosmic whole 
infinite and immortal" ( The Birth of Worlds and Systems, 
191 1, p. 10). Moreover, the natural inference or conclusion 
from such a supposed process, on the part of Western philo- 
sophic science, is that matter, energy and even life are eternal. 
Thus the great Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius speaks as 
follows: "Man used to speculate on the origin of matter, but 
gave that up when experience taught him that matter is inde- 
structible and can only be transformed. For similar reasons 
we never inquire into the origin of the energy of motion. And 
we may become accustomed to the idea that life is eternal, and 
hence that it is useless to inquire into its origin" {Worlds in 
the Making, 1908, p. 2i8). And, of course, from such prem- 
ises, it must be only logical to conclude that the universe is 
an uncreated entity. And this has come more and more to be 
the pet theory of a growing group of scientists. And although 



Theories as to the Origin of the Universe If 

this is the implied view in the works of these men, it has 
within recent years very frequently become a matter of open 
declaration. Among many such statements as might be cited, 
we would quote the following by Dr. Saleeby in The Academy 
of March 25, 1905 : "Radium-clocks have been made that will 
go for a million 3^ears; but I believe that the Universe was 
never made and will go on forever" (Vol. LXVIII., Article: 
The Life of the Universe, p. 342 ) . Thus the universe is held 
to be infinite, eternal and therefore uncreated, and the idea 
or need of a God is supposedly eliminated from the universe. 

Between this extreme materialistic position and that of the 
Rig-Veda there are modified theories of every shade, some 
closely approaching the former and others closely approaching 
the latter. The mythological theories of paganism are, how- 
ever, generally associated with some idea of emanation, the 
physical universe being regarded as a series of effluxes from 
the Godhead. The philosophico-scientific theories are asso- 
ciated with some idea of development, by properties and forces 
inhering in supposed eternally existing matter. 

In a general way, it may thus be said that Oriental specu- 
lation makes the universe to flow forth from Divinity itself — 
although even John Milton, Sir William Hamilton, et al., 
also entertained similar views — while Western philosophy 
makes it to arise out of eternal matter. And in both there is 
undoubtedly a bold groping after, and almost a grasping of, at 
least a part of the real truth. But while there are elements of 
truth in both, they nevertheless both sadly miss the kernel of 
truth itself. In making the universe an emanation from Divin- 
ity, Oriental philosophy ends in the ultimate identifying of God 
and the universe, leaving the universe and all within it essen- 
tially divine. In making the universe simply an inherently nec- 
essary evolution from eternal matter. Western philosophy tends 
to eliminate the idea of God, at least as a personality, alto- 
gether. And, between these two extremes, human speculation 
in Orient and Occident has ever been oscillating, now deifying 
nature, now materializing all; but the true conception of 
what really constitutes creation has been absent from both. 

It is interesting to note, however, that there is a tendency 
in Western philosophy, in a sense, to approach, or rather even 
to pass. Eastern philosophy on this subject. Impelled by the 
inevitable God-necessity to explain the universe, some Western 



1 8 Creation Ex Nihilo 

philosophers have come to regard the universe as a v^rhole as 
itself God. In Oriental philosophy it is primarily only an 
emanation from God, though resulting in its own deification. 
Thus, some Western Philosophers have been driven by the in- 
adequacy of the purely materialistic explanation of nature to 
arrive at practically the same end as that which Eastern philos- 
ophers have reached. There are, of course, several forms of 
this so-called pantheism, one of them being but a very little ad- 
vance upon pure materialism. 

Driven by the impelling sense of the necessity of a Divinity 
back of, or within, the great All to account for its existence, 
Ernst Haeckel gives utterance to the following: "As the sim- 
pler occurrences of inorganic nature and the more complicated 
phenomena of organic life are alike reducible to the same natu- 
ral forces, and as, further, these in their turn have their com- 
mon foundation in a simple primal principle pervading infinite 
space, we can regard this last (the cosmic ether) as all-compre- 
hending divinity, and upon this found the thesis: 'Belief in 
God is reconcilable with science'" {Monism, p. 92). 

While we do not want to anticipate our fuller answer, to 
be given later, we might call attention to the faulty reason- 
ing in this quotation. The whole argument is based upon un- 
proved premises, and therefore the conclusion is untrustworthy. 
Where, for example, is the proof that "the simpler occurrences 
of inorganic nature and the more complicated phenomena of 
organic life are alike reducible to the same natural forces"? 
And whence did the learned philosopher derive his information 
that these natural forces have "their foundation in a simple 
primal principle pervading infinite space" ? These assumptions 
are taken as facts only in the interests of a theory. What 
then is the final value of the theory? Why could not the 
author just as readily say Personality as principle, and thus 
practically express the profounder Christian truth, toward 
which all real philosophic speculation has more or less ten- 
dency instinctively ultimately to gravitate? 

And what is true of the reasoning in the above quotation 
is equally true of others cited earlier. But the mere calling 
of the attention to such assumptions should be sufficient in this 
connection to put the reader on his guard as to the reasoning 
of these men on this subject in general. 

In contrast with the pantheism of some eminent Western 



Theories as to the Origin of the Universe 19 

philosophers, we might call the conception of creation of East- 
ern philosophers panextheism. The Christian conception might 
then truly be spoken of by the term panentheism, although 
this word is subject to abuse. There is a broad general sense, 
therefore, in which all three agree; namely, that all is from 
God. In Eastern philosophy all is from God as an emanation 
from His divine substance — all from or out of God — panexthe- 
ism. In the prevailing form of philosophic pantheism all is 
from God as a manifestation or unfolding of His own being — 
all is God. To the Christian philosopher all is from God as 
an entity called into being by His creative will — all from, in 
the sense of potentially in, God — panentheism. But, in all the 
speculations on the subject of creation, some creative Divinity 
is either assumed or implied. Nor can any theory be con- 
ceived of as workable that attempts to remove God altogether 
from His universe. 

More than this brief statement of the prevailing philosophic 
views of creation it is not necessary here to give. Other de- 
tails of the materialistic conception will be given in our fur- 
ther discussion, as also there will be of the Christian concep- 
tion. 

II SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF CREATION EX NI- 
HILO—A TRANSCENDENTAL ONE 

The undoubted Scriptural idea of creation, as we hope con- 
clusively to prove later, is that which furnishes the title of 
this book; namely, that of a creation ex nihilo, out of nothing. 
This idea of creation, by the free volition of an absolute or 
unconditioned and eternal Being — of the material itself, out 
of nothing — is, of course, foreign to mere human thought and 
speculation. The mind of man is so constituted that the idea 
of the unconditioned can never really enter unenlightened con- 
sciousness. It must ever reason from known or accepted prem- 
ises or data, and to it the idea bodied forth in the expression 
ex nihiloj is even unthinkable as an element of such premise. 

I man's limitations as to the conception of such an 

IDEA 

To the natural man there are only two sources of informa- 
tion, hi? limited consciousness and experience. And neither 



20 Creation Ex Nihilo 

consciousness nor experience can afford him any data as to 
ultimate origins. Thus, a somethinff from nothing — an effect 
without any apparent cause — is totally unthinkable. It does 
in no way form part of experience, for by experience we know 
only of a making from existing materials; and it cannot enter, 
or be an element of, the consciousness of a conditioned mind. 
The mind is finite, as it is but part of a created (as we hope to 
prove), and therefore conditioned or limited, material and spirit- 
ual universe, as we know even from consciousness; and it is 
by that conditioned universe that it is in turn conditioned at 
every point. And, therefore, only as a creature, and condi- 
tioned, and in terms of a created,^ conditioned and condition- 
ing, universe can the mind reason. 

It is this conditioned nature of the human mind that gives 
such apparent force to the adage, ex nihilo nihil fit, and makes 
it the philosophic axiom that it is commonly regarded to be. 
It is this also that indirectly gave birth to, and sustains, as 
great working hypotheses in the present state of nature, such 
great scientific doctrines as those of the universality of gravi- 
tation, the uniformity of nature, the conservation of matter 
and energy, and those of tri-dimensional space and time as nec- 
essarily measured duration, as well as all accepted axiomatic 
truths. And, indeed, here is its legitimate sphere. Without a 
consistent application of the principle that underlies these scien- 
tific doctrines, both scientific and mechanical progress would 
be impossible. It is here applied to the determination and ap- 
plication of laws operating in an already existing universe in 
its present state, in which an accumulation of proper data is 
accessible, but to which, however, such data for reasoning are 
limited. 

But, when that conditioned nature of the mind becomes the 
ulterior background for, or the ultimate cause of, the mind's 
denial of what lies beyond its limited or conditioned conscious- 
ness and experience, such as a creation ex nihilo, it is plainly 
applied to, or operative in, what is by nature totally foreign to 
it. Or, when the mind in its conditioned nature attempts 
with certainty to solve the problem of the primal origination 
of the existing universe, then it attempts what does not belong 
to its proper sphere, and what therefore lies beyond the range 
of its every function. All its data for reasoning are limited 
to what already exists, however it came to be. Here, then, the 



Theories as to the Origin of the Universe 21 

conclusions of unenlightened reason cannot be trusted. It is, 
therefore, absurd for the human mind to stand in judgment 
on the problem of creation. 

Some statements of Sir William Hamilton bearing upon this 
subject add confirmatory evidence for the point just made. 
Note, for example, the following: "We are utterlj^ unable to 
construe it in thought as possible, that the complement of ex- 
istence has been either increased or diminished. We cannot 
conceive, either, on the one hand nothing becoming something, 
or, on the other, something becoming nothing" {Discussions, 
Third Edition, 1866, p. 605). As v^^e cannot, how^ever, agree 
wath Hamilton in his different application of this principle, an 
analysis of this statement seems necessary. 

As above explained, it is true, as this author says, that v^^e 
are unable to construe in thought as possible, or to realize, 
either absolute creation or absolute destruction. But it is not 
necessarily true, as he also implies, both here and elsev^here, 
that such creation and destruction are not possible. It is also 
true that we cannot conceive of nothing becoming something, 
or of something becoming nothing. Who would believe in such 
an impossibility! It is surely far from us to believe in such 
a becoming. Nor do we believe even in a creation of nothing 
into something, or of a destruction of something into nothing, 
as if nothing were a thing out of which something was created 
or into which something might be converted by destruction. 
Of course, such an impossibility could not be conceived. 

By absolute creation, as already indicated, is meant the crea- 
tion of something without previously existing materials, so that 
something is made to exist where before there was nothing. 
And so, by absolute destruction is meant the total blotting 
out of an existence, so that the existence altogether ceases to 
be. And yet, as clearly shown, even this cannot be directly 
conceived of by the finite mind. Therefore, whatever meaning 
as to creation or destruction Hamilton meant to convey, he 
said truly that we are utterly unable to conceive of it. But, 
in denying the possibility of absolute creation and absolute 
destruction, he was reading into the being, thoughts and acts 
of an unconditioned God, the limitations of the being, thoughts 
and acts of conditioned man. 

This error of Hamilton was a natural conclusion from the 
contradictory elements in his philosophy of the Unconditioned, 



22 Creation Ex Nihilo 

and from his apparently faulty notion of casuality. By these 
errors in his philosophy he was driven to say, "When God is 
said to create the universe out of nothing, wt think this, by 
supposing, that he evolves the universe out of nothing but him- 
self" {Discussions, p. 605). Such creation vi^ould merely mean 
emanation. And yet, as if laboring under the palpable diffi- 
culties involved in his reasoning on this subject, or as though 
perhaps impelled by his own early Christian convictions, he 
also in places apparently approached the Christian conception of 
creation. Some such meaning may be read into the following 
words: "It [creation] is conceived, and is by us conceivable, 
merely as the evolution of a new form of existence by the fiat 
of the Deity" {Lectures on Metaphysics and Loffic, 1859, Vol. 
IL, p. 405). 

The fact is, that in Hamilton's philosophy an absolute crea- 
tion could have no place. And, when followed to its ultimate 
conclusions, his philosophy must end practically in a pantheism 
whose controlling principle is that of a fatalistic necessity. This 
should be a striking illustration of the inconclusiveness of hu- 
man ratiocination, especially when based upon faulty premises, 
on this transcendental subject. 

The transcendental nature of the idea of a creation ex nihilo 
has also been recognized by some other philosophers, among 
them Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel. Thus, Ernst 
Haeckel has expressed himself as follows: "The conception 
of creation is perfectly unimaginable, if by it is understood 
*an origination of something out of nothing.' This acceptation 
is quite incompatible with one of the first and chiefest of 
Nature's laws — one, indeed, universally acknowledged — 
namely, with the great law, that all matter is eternal" {Gen- 
erelle Morphologic der Organismen, Vol. I., p. 171). 

The conception of creation, as an origination of something 
out of nothing, is truly unimaginable; but it is not so because 
of its necessary impossibility, but because of the very nature 
of the human mind. The impossibility does not exist in the 
nature of creation or of the created universe; but it exists 
in the created nature of the human mind. So-called imagina- 
tion itself is in reality governed by experience. Its products 
contain no new elements, but only new combinations of old 
presentations. Therefore, even imagination, in its final analy- 
sis, cannot transcend the elements of experience and conscious- 



Theories as to the Origin of the Universe 23 

ness. Hence, creation ex nihilo cannot even be imagined. And 
so far Haeckel has spoken truly. 

But, when the learned author is carried away by his pre- 
conceived notions that such creation is absolutely impossible, 
to say that it would be incompatible "with the great law, that 
all matter is eternal," he is inadvertently led to a petitio prin- 
cipii. Whether matter is eternal or not is the ultimate ques- 
tion at issue. Hence, to speak of a creation out of nothing 
as being incompatible with such a supposed law, is the same 
as speaking of a creation of something already existent. Such 
a statement is, of course, a palpable absurdity. 

In another of his works Haeckel makes a similar confession 
of our inability to understand a creation out of nothing: "Cre- 
ation, ... as the coming into existence of matter, does not 
concern us here at all. This process, if indeed it ever took 
place, is completely beyond human comprehension, and can 
therefore never become a subject of scientific inquiry. Natu- 
ral science teaches that matter is eternal and imperishable, 
for experience has never shown us that even the smallest par- 
ticle of matter has come into existence or passed away" {^The 
History of Creation, Vol. I., p. 8). 

In this passage also his reasoning seems somewhat incon- 
sistent. While he speaks of our inability to comprehend the 
process of such a creation, if it ever took place, he definitely de- 
clares that matter is eternal and that therefore it did not take 
place. And, if matter were certainly known to be eternal, 
it would be absurd to speak of such a creation, or even of 
the impossibility or possibility of comprehending it. But 
"there is the rub." Our author here also, for the sake of his 
monistic philosophy, is plainly begging the question. It is one 
thing to say that matter is eternal, or that science definitely so 
teaches; but it is quite a different thing to prove such a state- 
ment. He therefore assumes what even for his own philosophy 
must first be proved. If matter were eternal and could be 
proved to be so, then the question of such a creation would 
forever be settled and closed. And, whether it is so or not, 
is the chief burden of our consideration. 

Therefore, while these statements of Hamilton and Haeckel 
illustrate the faulty reasoning with which some eminent men 
would win the world to their views, they really strengthen 
our arguments in proof of the transcendental nature of the 
Scriptural idea of creation. 



24 Creation Ex Nihilo 

2 man's limitations as to the expression of such an 

IDEA 

This transcendental nature is illustrated even in the very 
inadequacy of language to express it. And, this is apparent 
in the language not only of those w^ho reject the theistic or 
Scriptural view, but also of those who reverently accept that 
view. Indeed, all human language is the outgrowth of neces- 
sity, terms being born or developed whenever new ideas demand 
expression, or old terms being pressed into service with added 
meanings. From primary or root ideas, reason, recognizing 
certain relations, comparisons, etc., evolves more complex but 
related ideas. Yet all these ideas may be said to have their 
ultim.ate root in the physical sensorium, and are developed and 
modified by experience in contact with a created and finite 
physical universe. Therefore, through sense -experience and 
consciousness, acted upon by reason, all language is really the 
outgrowth of, as it is based upon, the present physical sphere 
with its needs. Infinity, creation ex nihiloj etc., extending or 
lying beyond the range of human consciousness and experience, 
can therefore not only not be conceived, but they cannot even 
be expressed in primary or root terms of human speech. 

Thus, the word infinite is simply a negative term expres- 
sive of that which does not have an end. The really unknown 
or incomprehensible idea expressed in the word infinite is there- 
fore based upon, or developed from, the well known idea of a 
something that has an end. The same is true, in their analysis, 
of such terms as endless, eternity, creation, as also of the vari- 
ous expressions for God. Thus, the etymology of such He- 
brew names for God, as Jehovah, El, Elohim, Elah, Eloah, 
only too clearly illustrate the inadequacy of human speech to 
express the transcendental idea of God. This is therefore the 
natural basis of the many anthropomorphisms and anthro- 
popathisms of the Scriptures, which have been made the pre- 
tended ground of objection to its contents on the part of many 
men of science. Thus, Ernst Haeckel makes the following ob- 
jection to the Scriptural conception of God: "As a rule . . . 
it is an open or covert anthropomorphism. God is conceived 
as the 'Supreme Being,' but turns out, on closer examination, 
to be an idealized man" {Last Words on Evolution, p. 104). 
In the light of what is said above, it should be almost needless 



Theories as to the Origin of the Universe 25 

to say that the learned author ignores the real cause for such 
necessary anthropomorphism. A revelation of the one infinite 
and absolute Creator to a finite creature would not really be 
possible in terms or ideas of the Infinite and Absolute. It 
must necessarily be made in terms or ideas intelligible to such 
a creature; and for man these must, of course, be anthropo- 
morphic and anthropopathic. 

It is manifestly a misapprehension, or an apparent lack of 
proper understanding of the necessary inadequacy of human 
speech to express transcendental ideas like that of God, etc., 
that has thus caused so much confusion, on the part of many 
scientists, as to anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. 
This has given rise to many really absurd statements along this 
line in even very recent scientific and philosophic works. 

This inadequacy of human language, fully to express the 
idea of creation, because it transcends experience and conscious- 
ness, is therefore itself an additional evidence of the transcen- 
dental nature of the idea itself. Hence, the evident struggling 
for expressions by many writers to body forth such ideas, as 
well as the palpable inconsistencies and confusion in the reason- 
ing of many of them upon this transcendental subject. 

Thus language and idea must match each other, and neither 
of them is the measure of existence. Hence, creation, God, 
etc., can no more by us be absolutely expressed than they can 
by us be really known or conceived. But the sphere of our 
knowledge or conception is surely not conterminous with the 
sphere of existence or reality. And yet, the two spheres should 
be virtually concentric, as the sphere of actual knowledge must 
be a real part of the sphere of reality — and, of course, that part 
nearest to the centre of conception. So, the sphere of reality 
for man must proceed from the centre of his conception out- 
ward indefinitely beyond the variable sphere of knowledge. 
And where the sphere of reality passes beyond the sphere of 
human knowledge and conception, it becomes the hypersphere 
of faith. And yet, even that hypersphere of a truly certified 
faith can not nullify or set aside the sphere of actual knowl- 
edge, nor can it even be in conflict with consistent reason — as 
it is only the extension of the sphere of the same reality as 
that which constitutes limited real human knowledge. Hence, 
where knowledge ends faith begins. And where even con- 
ception ends, faith in a reality even transcending conception, 



26 Creation Ex Nihilo 

rests In that transcendental reality as the ne plus ultra which 
is the necessary postulate for all existence. And that ultimate 
reality Is for the Christian his adorable God; and for others, 
from the agnostic to the atheistic materialist, it in a sense must 
also be equivalent to some causal Divinity. 

Moreover, as the sphere of our real knov^ledge enlarges, so 
also, for us, must the transcendent continuation of the sphere 
of reality necessarily enlarge v^^ith it. The larger the con- 
tained or central sphere of light becomes, the larger becomes 
the containing or ensphering sphere of darkness. And thus, 
with the expanding of the sphere of our conscious knowledge of 
reality must necessarily expand our consciousness or concep- 
tion of the greatness of the reality that transcends our knowl- 
edge. This might almost be considered as the same as saying 
that the enlarging of the sphere of conscious knowledge also 
necessarily enlarges our consciousness of our transcendent 
ignorance. 

And thus there is truly a variable limit to the certain, and 
therefore legitimate, sphere of human reason, beyond which 
there can be no direct evidence of sense, of experience and 
consciousness, upon which to base trustworthy conclusions. 
And, therefore, as to truth and reality In that unexplored re- 
gion, the speculations of unenlightened reason cannot safely be 
followed. And yet, as above intimated and as implied through- 
out, there is a universal intuitive conviction, tantamount vir- 
tually to a dim indefinite consciousness, of the existence of 
transcending truths and realities and of an ultimate or trans- 
cendent absolute Reality. And here faith In this natural con- 
viction of the existence of such realities and truths is as neces- 
sary as faith in the supernatural revelation of them, devoutly ac- 
cepted by the Christian. Thus, we emphasize, where real 
knowledge ends, a real faith based upon other natural evidence 
than that of the physical sensorium, as well as faith based upon 
the certified evidence of the Christian Revelation, naturally be- 
gins. And to that transcendental realm the subject of crea- 
tion necessarily belongs, as also pointed out above. 

This transcendental nature of the subject in hand must, 
however, not prevent us from making a careful study of the 
same in the interests of truth against error, of Christianity 
against atheism. By nullifying or neutralizing the arguments 
of the objectors to the Scriptural idea of creation ex nihilo ^ we 



Theories as to the Oriffin of the Universe 27 

shall be taking away, or spiking, their only weapons of de- 
fense. And, in addition to this, by incontrovertible arguments 
in proof of a creation by a supreme Will, we hope to show 
not only that this transcendental idea of creation is the only 
tenable one, but also that such a creation is even a demonstrable 
fact. 



CHAPTER II 

MATERIALISM'S EXPLANATION OF THE UNI- 
VERSE INADEQUATE 

Upon the mere face of it, especially as to some of its funda- 
mental -elements, the explanation of the universe, according to 
materialism, may to many people seem rather plausible. Its 
primary assumption, as has already been noted, is that matter 
is uncreatable and indestructible, that it must therefore have 
existence from eternity, and that therefore also it must through 
eternity continue to exist. 

This assumption is, however, clearly a petitio principii; for, 
whether matter is uncreatable and indestructible or not, or 
whether it is eternal or not, is the question at issue. The fact 
that matter is uncreatable and indestructible by human means 
is no proof of its being eternal. Because of our own limita- 
tions, we cannot deny to Almightiness the power of absolute 
creation and absolute destruction any more than the power of 
a making from previously existing materials or a changing of 
form. 

Materialism, moreover, assumes certain potentialities or 
energy in this supposedly eternal matter, by the operations of 
which the great cosmos, including the phenomena of life and 
mind and history, through long cycles of progression or evolu- 
tion, came to be. We shall now consider the explanation of 
the universe, according to materialism, somewhat more at 
length, under two heads; namely, as to inorganic nature and 
as to organic nature. 

I AS TO INORGANIC NATURE 

Eminent scientists have come to the natural conclusion that 
only the form of matter is changeable, but the ultimate sub- 
stance never. Thus Clerk-Maxwell, in his Lecture on 

28 



MaterialisTus Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 29 

Molecules before the British Association, Bradford, 1873, 
made the following statement: "Natural causes, as we 
know, are at work which tend to modify, if they do not at 
length destroy, all the arrangements and dimensions of the 
earth and the whole solar system. But though in the course 
of ages catastrophes have occurred and may yet occur in the 
heavens, though ancient systems may be dissolved and new 
systems evolved out of their ruins, the molecules out of which 
these systems are built — the foundation-stones of the material 
universe — remain unbroken and unworn" {Scientific Papers, 
Vol. IL, p. 377). 

This scientific doctrine of the apparent indestructibility of 
matter, amid its Protean transformations, is made the basic 
principle of modern materialism. And, in a general sense, at 
least from the standpoint of man's powers, it may be scien- 
tifically true for the existing or present order of nature. And 
yet, it is now definitely known that even the atoms — those sup- 
posed foundation-stones of the universe — are disintegrating by 
what is known as their own intrinsic sub-atomic energy, and 
that this energy must ultimately be dissipated as heat and 
eventually be equalized and lost for further use. 

I THE REASONING OR METHOD AND THE SPIRIT OF MA- 
TERIALISM ANTI-THEISTIC 

Materialists, of course, hold to the scientific doctrine that 
all matter ultimately consists of individual but infinitesimal 
particles called atoms and electrons. And this theory is un- 
doubtedly correct. They declare that these ultimate particles 
combine into molecules according to definite laws, and that 
aggregations of these molecules constitute masses. And this is 
equally true. They teach that, by the operations of inherent 
energy, these, in their interactions, have evolved into the great 
cosmos of which man with his body and rational soul is a part. 
This is, however, only an hypothesis of scientific faith; or, 
shall we say, of scientific wish? But, within and above or 
beyond the universe, materialists recognize no living divine 
Personality originating and energizing all. In this theory God 
has no place, as the God-factor is supposedly not needed. Its 
assumed eternal matter, with its supposed inherent and ever- 
operating potentialities, is considered sufficient to account for 



30 Creation Ex Nihilo 

all existence. Thus, in such works as Laplace's (i 749-1 827) 
System of Celestial Mechanics {Mechanique Celeste, 1799, 
etc.), there is no place for an ever-operating and sustaining 
Deity. This was readily recognized by the great Napoleon, 
as he read Laplace's book. He accordingly said to the philo- 
sophic astronomer, "Monsieur, I have examined your work and 
find therein no room for the existence of God." The answer 
of Laplace, from the viewpoint of an all-sufficient materialism, 
naturally was, "Citizen, premier consul, I have no need of 
such an hypothesis." In his earlier work, Exposition du Sys- 
feme du monde (1796), he had similarly attempted to account 
for nature altogether without a creative Deity. 

And yet, the nebular theory of a purely natural mechanistic 
explanation of supposed cosmic evolution, is more and more 
being rejected in the form in which Laplace gave it to the 
world. Thus, after considering the nebular theory in the light 
of irregular movements of comets, etc., Sir Robert Ball sums 
up as follows: "The solar system consists of some thousands 
of different bodies; these bodies move in orbits of the most 
varied degree of eccentricity; they have no common direction; 
their planes are situated in all conceivable positions save only 
that each of these planes must pass through the sun. Stated in 
this way, the present condition of the solar system is surely no 
argument for the nebular theory. It might rather be said 
that it is inconceivable on the nebular theory how a system of 
this form could be constructed at all. Nine-tenths of the 
bodies in the solar system do not exhibit movements which 
would suggest that they were produced from a nebula. . . , 
The planetary system now lives because it was an organism 
fitted for survival" {In the High Heavens, p. 224). 

This and other conclusions of some eminent scientists should 
go a long way to put people on their guard against too readily 
accepting the verdict of certain other scientists as final. And, 
of course, when these men substitute nature for God, or deify 
nature and spell it with a capital N, and dogmatically declare 
against the existence of God, it were well to be somewhat timid 
in following these self-constituted orphans in the universe. 
Surely, a man who denies his father, must have an ulterior 
motive and can, therefore, not be trusted as a guide. 

Fully as emphatic as Laplace — and even more so in some 
cases — in their denial of the existence of God, have been some 



Materialisjns Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 31 

other writers. Thus, some statements of Schopenhauer, Feuer- 
bach, and others that might be mentioned, border even on the 
profane. Thus, Feuerbach went so far as to say, "There is no 
God ; it is clear as the sun and as evident as the day that there 
is no God, and still more that there can be none." 

Of similar import is Ernst Haeckel's dogmatic declaration, 
in the interests of his philosophy of materialistic monism, as 
follows: "Our monistic view, that the great cosmic law [of 
the conservation of substance] applies throughout the whole 
of nature, is of the highest moment. ... It marks the highest 
intellectual progress, in that it definitely rules out the three 
central dogmas of metaphysics — God, freedom, and immor- 
tality" {The Riddle of the Universe, 1900, p. 232). And 
equally dogmatic and unfounded are the following later words 
by the same author: "These two laws [of the conservation 
of matter and the conservation of energy] are irreconcilable 
with the three central dogmas of metaphysics, which so many 
educated people still regard as the most precious treasures of 
their spiritual life — the belief in a personal God, the personal 
imm.ortality of the soul, and the liberty of the human will" 
{Last Words on Evolution, 1906, pp. lio-lil). 

In Haeckel's opinion, monism is the undoubted key to the 
explanation of all existence. He thus considers settled not 
only the doctrine of the nature of matter, which he regards as 
an eternal entity, but even that of the origin of sensation and 
consciousness. Monistic evolution he considers sufficient to 
account for the evident order and arrangement in nature, the 
origin of life, together with rational thought and human 
speech. There is, therefore, no need of a creating and direct- 
ing Deity. Free personality has, therefore, also no existence 
in realit}^ What might be considered as Deity, is, therefore, 
not a Personality, but the inherent potentiality or the evolu- 
tionary, impulse in nature, which may be traceable to the ulti- 
mate ether, as he explains elsewhere {Ibid., p. 16). Thus 
nature and what there is of a Deity are one, as also are body 
and the so-called soul, matter and so-called energy. Matter 
and spirit are, therefore, regarded as two attributes, or faces 
of the one universal substance, which is itself essentially divine. 
Substance would thus be a double-faced entity, as Alexander 
Bain expressed it. The philosophy of monism may, therefore, 
well be designated as monistic pantheism. 



32 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Somewhat similar in tone to the statements of Haeckel, is 
the following by Gustave LeBon: "If hypotheses analogous 
to mine [as to the origin of matter and energy] are rejected, 
we must return to that of a creator drawing forth worlds 
from his will — that is to say, from a nothing much more 
mysterious still than the substratum from which I have en- 
deavoured to raise them. The gods having been eliminated 
from nature, where our ignorance alone had placed them, 
we must try to explain things without them" {The Evolution 
of Forces J 1908, p. 98). 

It is thus readily seen that materialism's burden is to re- 
move God from the universe by explaining everything without 
Him. And the wish seems to be father of the thought. There 
is, therefore, a manifest method in its madness. And, indeed, 
materialism's explanation of the universe, superficially viewed, 
seems almost like conclusive reasoning: but let us more closely 
examine it. 

2 THE PREMISES OF MATERIALISM MATTERS OF INDEFINITE 
UNFOUNDED SCIENTIFIC FAITH 

To materialists, the Christian's conception of creation is 
too much a matter of faith. They must know, and surely the 
idea of God cannot, as they contend, be a matter of knowledge. 
And yet, their own reasoning is also, in its last analysis — and 
must necessarily be — based upon faith. Materialists postulate 
as their major premise what is really the burden of proof; 
namely, the eternity and indestructibility of matter. They 
must accept the theory of infinitesimal atoms and electrons, 
which themselves necessarily lie beyond the range of all certain 
knowledge gained by direct experience and consciousness. They 
combine these infinitesimal particles by laws for whose origin 
they can furnish no explanation. And back of all these com- 
binations for the evolution of the great complex whole they 
place force or energy for which they can assign no cause. And, 
the crowning wonder of it all ! if we may anticipate, the definite 
impHcat-ion is that their own conditioned minds, themselves the 
supposed result of this cosmic evolution, have thus reasoned 
out the very processes of their own origination and those by 
which the universe came to be. This certainly looks like a 
man attempting to weigh himself while holding his own scale. 



Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 33 

Thus, these men must continually assume as working hy- 
potheses what are as much matters of faith as the Christian's 
God. And, if they regard the existence of the Christian's God 
as an hypothesis, then, as we shall show, this God-hypothesis — 
using their own terminology — is immeasurably grander and 
far more adequate and intelligible as an explanation of the 
existing universe than the matter-and-energy-hypothesis, the 
hypothesis of dust-and-death, of materialism. 

In thus attempting to explain, or solve the problem of, crea- 
tion without the God-factor, some physical scientists have 
been led into a bewildering maze of perplexities and contra- 
dictions. They reason as if in the equation three times five 
equals fifteen (3X5 = 15), the first member were partly 
or entirely omitted, leaving it to stand three times .... equals 

fifteen (3 X = 15), or equals fifteen ( = 15), 

■ — a manifest absurdity and the latter not even a statement. 

While the problem of creation cannot be solved nor really 
even be adequately illustrated mathematically, we believe that 
some idea can be gained by expressing it in the form of an 
equation. Thus, let the word equals stand for or represent 
the word created: then the statement, God by His will or 
power created the universe^ may be represented thus, God 
times His will or power equals the universe (God X His will 
or power = the universe). The materialist, of course, ac- 
cepts the last member of the equation, equals the universe, for 
it exists. But, in assuming the eternal existence of matter 
or the universe, he might be said altogether to omit the first 
member of our equation, leaving it not an equation. For, as 
it did not have a beginning, it therefore had no origin, and 
therefore no cause; and thus there would be no first member 
and therefore no equation. Or with him the explanation of 
the universe might be^ "The universe equals the universe." 
Or he might be regarded as, for its cause, postulating eternal 
matter, as one of its factors, and as consciously or uncon- 
sciously linking with it some force or energy, unaccounted for, 
as another factor in the first member. But even this would 
not cause it to be an equation, but leave it an inequality with 
the second member greater than the first (cause < universe), 
as we shall see. He thus fails to link with it or place back 
of it an adequate or sufficient and definite cause. And 
the only adequate or sufficient cause that can possibly be sup- 



34 Creation Ex Nihilo 

plied as such factor in that equation to complete and balance 
it — even if eternal matter were assumed — is the factor which 
the Christian adores as God^ as we shall show. 

Of the materialist we might ask a whole series of ques- 
tions, which, even from his own standpoint, are absolutely 
unanswerable. Whence is matter with its property of eter- 
nalism? Whence the atoms and electrons that are the ele- 
ments of matter? Whence the laws that govern their com- 
binations? Whence the motions that are supposed to combine 
them; for these, apart from an ulterior energy, are contrary 
to the law of inertia? Whence the forces that produce or pro- 
duced these motions? Whence the energy that lies back of 
all these forces? And whence did he, himself the supposed 
product of all his unexplained whence or thence, derive his 
knowledge of all this supposedly eternally existing, but really 
conditioned and conditioning, universe, of which he himself is 
in one sense the most conditioned, and yet in another sense the 
most mysteriously wonderful, part? And, wonder of won- 
ders! if his universe is all evolved and is still evolving, how 
long, or rather how short, is his eternity, that the universe 
did not reach the end of its evolutions unassignable ages ago ? 

Energy is surely not merely the product of inert matter, 
because matter would be an inadequate cause to produce such 
energy. The effect must be in the cause; but here the effect 
would be totally different from anything in the cause. We 
are, of course, speaking of a non-absolute entity as a cause. 
The same reasoning would hold in proving that inert matter 
is not from energy, if the materialist would change his base and 
declare for the eternity of physical energy instead of matter, 
and assert that matter was produced by physical energy. And, 
to say that energy, or matter, produced itself would be an 
absurdity. Moreover, to the materialist, energy does not even 
have any existence apart from matter. Thus, in trying to 
evade the really inevitable God-factor in explaining what 
should almost axiomatically be accepted as a God-created and 
God-governed universe, the materialist tries to hide himself 
behind glittering generalizations and half-truths, which he at- 
tempts to hold together in plausible consistency with a broken 
chain of inconclusive argumentation. But in his vain at- 
tempt he really is burying himself beneath a heap of absurdi- 
ties and contradictions. 



Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 35 

The materialist admits the existence of nature or matter: 
why will he not admit the existence of a nature-Builder, a 
matter-Creator, as .the ultimate Cause? He admits the ex- 
istence of infinitesimally small particles, by whose combina- 
tions the material cosmos was made possible; and in so doing 
he clearly implies in those very fitted particles and in that 
very cosmos as an end, a Fitter or Designer, and therefore 
an intelligent First Cause. Then, why does he not openly 
acknowledge the existence of that First Cause? He admits 
the existence of definite laws of combinations for these in- 
finitesimal particles: why does he not admit the existence of 
their law-Giver? He admits the presence of motions and in- 
teractions among his hypothetical particles: why does he not 
admit their implied cause, a mighty Mover? He admits the 
existence of force and ultimate energy: then, why is he not 
willing to admit that of the great Forcer or Energizer of 
all? 

Even some of the most eminent materialists are compelled 
to acknowledge this irresistible logic of facts. Thus, in the 
famous Berlin Discussions, February, 1907, Prof. Plate was 
compelled to make the following concession: "Personally, I 
always maintain that, if there are laws of nature, it is only 
logical to admit that there is a lawgiver" (Erich Wassmann: 
The Problem of Evolution, p. 108). What could be more self- 
convicting on the part of an acknowledged authority on monis- 
tic materialism! He would surely not deny the existence of 
so-called laws of nature, for these are the foundation prin- 
ciples upon which his theory is constructed. Hence, his state- 
ment, upon his own conditions, necessitates the existence of a 
lawgiver, or else it is nothing but empty words. That the 
materialist must make these admissions by the very logic of 
necessity, will be more fully shown when we shall set forth 
the positive side of the case and develop these points in later 
chapters. 



n AS TO ORGANIC NATURE 

So far we have spoken of inorganic nature. Now, how 
about organic nature? Whence came organisms? Whence 
c^me life? And yet, even for these phenomena, materialism 



36 Creation Ex Nihilo 

has an explanation to offer, and one that is apparently to itself 
quite satisfactory. It is summed up for us by Robert Kennedy 
Duncan in the following words: "It may safely be said 
that many, perhaps most, men of science — physiological chem- 
ists, biologists, and psychologists — are agreed upon one, 'There 
is no Life apparently necessary to, or visible in, the body; 
therefore there is no Life.' Upon this assumption they believe 
and they teach that all our feelings, thinkings, and willings, 
our very consciousness, are the products of the play of the 
physico-chemical processes in the brain" {Some Chemical Prob- 
lems of To-Day, 191 1, p. 80). Thus life as a separate entity 
has no place in the system of materialism. It is a phenomenon 
of matter and nothing more. 



I ACCORDING TO MATERIALISM, LIFE AND MIND ONLY FORMS 
OR RESULTS OF ENERGY 

The fact is, the materialistic scientist necessarily deals with 
matter and its associated energy alone. And, as life has some 
similarities to energy, there is a tendency to regard it as a 
form of energy. As such, in his natural processes of reason- 
ing, it must necessarily either have been co-eternal with mat- 
ter or it must be the product of matter. Thus the processes 
of life are explained chemically and electrically. Some hold 
them to be due to the actions of negative and positive ions. 
Life, as well as disease, has been regarded as a series of 
fermentations. As to mind, that is to him, of course, the re- 
sult of the collocation of the molecules of the highly organized 
brain, or of the above in still greater complexity. 

A purely materialistic conception of life necessarily requires 
a purely materialistic definition. And such a definition is the 
famous one by Herbert Spencer, that life is "The definite com- 
bination of heterogeneous changes, both simultaneous and 
successive, in correspondence with external co-existences and 
sequences'* {The Principles of Biology, 1900, Vol. I., p. 93). 
From the view-point of materialism this sounds like a sage ex 
cathedra declaration that expresses much in a few words. But, 
while it has considerable scientific force, it nevertheless reminds 
us somewhat of a traditional definition by Plato; namely, that 
man is a biped without feathers. The story runs that his pupil 



Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 37 

Aristotle, noticing a possibly wider application of the defini- 
tion, quickly stripped a rooster of his feathers and brought him 
to his master, saying, "Here be Plato's man." The applica- 
tion to Spencer's definition is left to the reader. 

It is, of course, almost needless to say that with such a 
conception of life and mind, man, with what has been re- 
garded as an immortal soul, must fall from his exalted throne 
of being, superior to the rest of surrounding nature. There- 
fore, in accordance with this materialistic monistic philosophy, 
Ernst Haeckel is thoroughly consistent when he makes the fol- 
lowing declaration: "Our own 'human nature,' which exalted 
itself into an image of God in an anthropistic illusion, sinks 
to the level of a placental mammal, which has no more value 
for the universe at large than the ant, the fly of a summer's 
day, the microscopic infusorium, or the smallest bacillus. Hu- 
manity is but a transitory phase of the evolution of an eternal 
substance, a particular phenomenal form of matter and energy, 
the true proportion of which we soon perceive when we set 
it on the background of infinite space and eternal time" {The 
Riddle of the Universe^ p. 244). 

This might as well be considered as simply a beautiful col- 
lection of figures of speech. The figures or outlines are there; 
but the substances or contents are largely a human creation 
ex nihilo. What a strange descent on the part of the learned 
author from an image of Deity to a placental mammal, an 
ant, a fly, an infusorium, a bacillus! It must seem like mak- 
ing a discovery to learn by one's own power and choice so 
much of one's real self! But how was such wonderful knowl- 
edge arrived at? What were the premises of reasoning? How 
were those assumed premises raised to the exalted status of fact 
in the interests of the dethronement of man? And as to that 
supposed eternal substance, and man as that transitory phase 
of its evolution, whence the high authority for such sage ut- 
terances about things merely assumed? And as to eternal time 
and infinite space, where are the proofs? And this should be 
all the more imperative when some of the most recent dis- 
coveries of science, as well as the unbiased dictates of reason, 
are in conflict with most of these assumptions of this great 
philosopher. 



38 Creation Ex Nihilo 

2 A LIFE-PERVADED ORGANISM ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM 
AN INANIMATE CRYSTALLIZATION 

Surely the materialist cannot help but recognize the differ- 
ence even between an inanimate crystallization and a life- 
pervaded organism. He cannot explain even the crystalliza- 
tion, except by hiding himself behind crystallized statements of 
supposed laws. Yet, even in so doing, as already noted, he im- 
plies a law-Giver back of it. And for the materialist not to 
acknowledge the existence of a law-Giver back of crystal 
formations and their laws, in the face of those formations and 
their laws, is as absurd as for his untutored servant, or his own 
child, to deny the materialist's existence in the face of his 
crystallized statements of those laws or even of his personal 
presence. 

And, if he cannot explain inanimate crystallization without 
implying the Divine power back of it, how can he explain 
the mystery of the existence of a living organism without as- 
suming back of it a living Orffanist or Organizer? He per- 
sistently declares for the adequacy of every cause to produce 
its effect : how then will he explain the origin of life from 
dead matter? And yet his whole chain of reasoning hangs 
with one end upon the peg of supposed eternal matter and 
with the other upon a life-pervaded completed, or perhaps still 
evolving, cosmos. By what congeries of reasonings can a uni- 
verse teeming with motion and life be made to be the product 
from a motionless aggregation of unnumbered lifeless material 
atoms or electrons, or what not, not to speak even of the 
primal origination of these particles? Then, how about man 
with all the wonderful faculties of his mind, of which the 
materialist's own ratiocinations — though oft inconclusive — 
themselves afiford a striking illustration? Here, surely, one 
would think that the materialist would almost bo_w with 
reverence before his own wonderful being! But no, even his 
own boasted intellect he declares to be but the resultant of 
molecular interaction, or of chemical and electrical action, 
within the cells of his own brain. And how wonderful! by 
this molecular interaction, or chemical and electrical action, 
within his own brain, as a producer, this product of molecules, 
atoms or electrons, has found an explanation for its own mys- 
terious origin and being ! And so he would nevertheless boldly 



Materialisrns Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 39 

declare in the words of Descartes, Cogito, ergo sum! 

What, then, are the facts in the case? Is life an evolution 
from matter? To say so, without any definite scientific evi- 
dence whatever, is an assumption that is well-nigh unpardon- 
able. Surely, materialistic scientists, or mechanists, do not 
have it all their own way. Among phtlosophersj with but few 
exceptions, there is probably no great name in Europe or 
America — and for that matter there practically has been none 
—that agrees with materialism on this point. To find a 
mechanist among the world's really great philosophers is 
virtually impossible. Even the most radically skeptical or anti- 
Christian see in life more than matter and in the universe 
more than a meaningless jumble of material or electrical par- 
ticles. Thus Henri Bergson in the following words gives 
expression to what must be evident to all thinkers ; namely, that 
life is more than matter: "As the smallest grain of dust forms 
part of our entire solar system, and is involved along with it 
in this undivided downward movement which is materiality it- 
self, so all organized beings from the humblest to the highest, 
from the first origins of life to the times in which we live, and 
in all places as at all times, do but demonstrate to our eyes 
a unique impulse contrary to the movement of matter, and, in 
itself indivisible" {The New Philosophy of Henri Bergson, 
LeRoy, 1913, p. 99, or Creative Evolution, p. 270). Thus, 
Bergson's philosophy unmistakably regards life as more than 
matter. 

Nor are philosophers alone in holding life not to be from 
matter, and therefore to be more than matter. Many of the 
greatest men of science are equally convinced of this. Thus 
this same truth, especially as to the higher manifestations of life 
in thought, feeling, and consciousness, is expressed in the fol- 
lowing words by the chemist Robert K. Duncan: ''And yet, 
however unreasonable it may appear, and unnecessary and 
even absurd, this law-ridden living matter does not consist of 
matter alone. There are tangled up in it, somehow — asso- 
ciated with it — strange things called perceivings, thinkings, 
willings, feelings, and consciousness, things that are not mat- 
ter at all. There are, thus, the two parts of us, the matter 
part of us and the not-matter part of us. What is the rela- 
tion between them? In this, of course, is asked the riddle 
of the world" {Some Chemical Problems of To-day, 79-80). 



40 Creation Ex Nihilo 

And no less an authority on biology than Alfred Russel 
Wallace openly recognized the transcendental nature of life 
and very definitely declared it to be impossible to define it in 
terms of physical science. Note the following words: "So 
marvellous and so varied are the phenomena presented by liv- 
ing things, so completely do their powers transcend those of 
all other forms of matter subjected to mechanical, physical, 
or chemical laws, that biologists have vainly endeavored to 
find out what is at the bottom of their strange manifestations, 
and to give precise definitions, in terms of physical science, 
of what 'life' really is" (The World of Life, 191 1, p. 3). 

It would seem to need little argument to prove that life 
cannot be the result of the interaction of molecules or atoms, 
as it is totally different from anything in such supposed cause. 
It cannot be explained in terms of matter and energy. If 
matter were only a mode of energy, as is fast being held by 
many, a materialistic explanation of life would really make 
it a form of energy. And life has been so regarded by many; 
and this theory has also been quite fully elaborated by some 
writers. Haeckel, in true consistency with his monistic philos- 
ophy, has much to say upon this point. He applies the law 
of the conservation of substance to the phenomena of life and 
mind in the following words: ''Not only the growth and 
the nutrition of plants and animals, but even their functions 
of sensation and movement, their sense-action and psychic life, 
depend on the conversion of potential into kinetic energy, and 
vice versa. This supreme law dominates also those elaborate 
performances of the nervous system which we call, in the higher 
animals and man, 'the action of the mind' " ( The Riddle of 
the Universe, p. 232). 

If life were a form of energy, it would have to be trans- 
mutable into other forms, and other forms into it, according 
to the definition accepted by materialists themselves. But such 
transmutation is universally acknowledged to be impossible; 
therefore, the supposition of its being a form of energy can- 
not stand. Indeed, life, as we know it in all its phenomena, is 
so utterly different from all accepted forms of energy, that 
the very suggestion that it is merely a form of energy is 
palpably absurd. Life is manifestly self-directing or causal, 
especially in its higher forms, while all forms of energy are 



Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 41 

merely the results or effects of operations in material nature, 
according to fixed or definite laws. Indeed, energy in all its 
forms is acknowledged to be a mode of motion, molar, molecu- 
lar, atomic, electronic, etc.; or it may rather be regarded as 
the result of such motion. But no such motion can be trans- 
muted into, or result in, life. 

As great a physical scientist as Sir Oliver Lodge has been 
led in his researches more and more definitely to hold life 
to be a distinctly spiritual entity, totally different from both 
matter and energy. And, even though in some of his philo- 
sophic speculations as to certain properties of the soul and 
powers of soul-communication he undoubtedly arrived at un- 
warranted conclusions, this does not invalidate the authorita- 
tive value of the following explicit statement: "The view 
concerning Life which I have endeavoured to express is that 
it is neither matter nor energy, nor even a function of mat- 
ter or of energy, but is something belonging to a different cate- 
gory; that by some means, at present unknown, it is able to 
interact with the material world for a time, but that it can 
also exist in some sense independently; although in that condi- 
tion of existence it is by no means apprehensible by our senses" 
{Life and Matter, 1905, p. 119). 

In a somewhat recent philosophic work we find the same 
position very definitely taken by its learned author, Professor 
Aliotta, who writes thus: "This most living part, which is 
nearest to us, which stirs within us, struggles, suffers, and hopes 
amid the tumult of our mind, cannot be understood by means of 
the schemes and formulas of mechanical science, but demands 
for its comprehension another and higher order of categories 
and principles" {The Idealistic Reaction against Science, 191 4, 
p. 470). 

But even suppose it were granted, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that life, especially in Its lower forms, might be only 
the result of mechanical, chemical and electrical processes, 
and that the adaptations of so-called instinct mi9:ht be caused by 
mere chemical stimuli, as suggested by Dr. Jacques Loeb, a 
creative Power would still have to be postulated back of all 
these vital processes as their ultimate cause. These very phys- 
ical provisions and adaptations would imply arrangement for 
the very purposes subserved, and therefore a cause transcend- 
ing physical nature with its material and vital processes. If 



42 Creation Ex Nihilo 

the provision of electrical ions were actually found to be so 
wonderful and so marvelously adapted as to cause muscular 
movement, reproduction, growth and other mysterious vital 
processes, we might indeed regard the mystery of life to be 
that nearer human solution. But such discovery would only 
deepen the mystery on the other side of our discovery. Its 
wonder would only seem all the more wonderful, and its cause 
all the more truly transcendent. Indeed, our admiration of 
the wonderful ultimate causal, or creative and providing, Per- 
sonality, would only be enhanced by every successive step in 
our discovery of what would simply in such case constitute His 
provided methods of operation. Hence, the believer in God 
need never fear any legitimate results of scientific research 
even along this line, although we are not in the least anticipat- 
ing any such startling real discovery. 

3 THE SUPPOSED COSMOZOIC ORIGIN OF TERRESTRIAL LIFE 

EXAMINED 

There have been and still are some eminent scientists, among 
them Lord Kelvin, Helmholtz and Arrhenius, who would have 
us look elsewhere than on this planet for life's origin. In 
apparent seriousness they assume that the beginnings of life 
here were wafted upon the cooling earth, vast geological ages 
ago, from some other body of our solar system. And this body 
may presumably have received it previously from some body 
in the stellar universe beyond. 

As this theory has been favorably received by some great 
men of science, although it does not strictly belong to this 
chapter, it deserves a hearing in this connection. This theory, 
in a general way called that of panspermia or the cosmozoic 
hypothesis^ has from time to time assumed slightly different 
forms. But, briefly stated, according to it, life on this and 
perhaps on other worlds began when, under proper condi- 
tions for their development, germs of life supposedly floating 
through space, upon being picked up, found a proper soil. 

There were some quite early intimations of this theory, even 
before the theory of evolution was formulated by Darwin and 
Wallace ; but they were not fully developed because apparently 
not specially needed to explain other theories. But Dr. H. E. 
Richter (1865) in trying to overcome the difficulties involved 



Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 43 

in Darwinism to account for primal life on this planet, gave 
it more definite form, as follows: "The infinite space is filled 
with, or (more correctly) contains, growing, mature, and 
dying celestial bodies. By mature worlds we understand those 
which are capable of sustaining organic life. We regard the 
existence of organic life in the universe as eternal. Life has 
always been there; it has alw^ays propagated itself in the shape 
of living organisms, from cells and from individuals composed 
of cells" (Arrhenius: Worlds in the Making, p. 218). Thus 
life is supposed to have existed indefinitely in the cosmic dust 
within the interstellar space. 

These views of Richter found a ready adherent in the great 
botanist Ferdinand Cohn (1872). Helmholtz, in his Populdre 
JVissenschaftliche Vortrdge, Volume III., also spoke of a pos- 
sibility that life might be as old as matter, and even without 
beginning or eternal, and that seeds of life might have been 
carried from one celestial body to another and developed 
wherever they found favorable conditions. And Lord Kelvin, 
in an address before the British Associationj Edinburgh, 187 1, 
said, "The hypothesis that life originated on this earth through 
moss-grown fragments from the ruins of another world may 
seem wild and visionary; all I maintain is that it is not un- 
scientific" {Nature, Vol. IV., p. 270). And again, in sub- 
stance he declared it as his opinion, that, during supposed col- 
lisions, life may be carried off from life-bearing bodies, and 
that in meteoric stones as seed bearers it may be planted on 
other bodies. 

The reader must not fail, however, to see the impossibility 
of such a transmission, because of the far too intense heat 
generated by the flight through the regions of the atmosphere 
(from 15 to 40 miles a second) of such meteoric matter. In- 
deed, the heat is so intense that it fuses the largest and hardest 
meteoric bodies. But very few of the myriads of such bodies 
reach the earth, as in their passage through the upper air 
most of them are totally reduced to gases and ashes. Then, 
too, the time required would be too long for life to persist. 
More need not, therefore, here be said upon this point. 

According to the Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius, who 
accepts the theory that life germs or minute organisms float in 
space, these germs are pushed against other heavenly bodies 
by radiation pressure of sun or star. We might say by way 



44 Creation Ex Nihilo 

of explanation that, as light pressure varies as the areas of 
surfaces, it varies as the squares of the diameters; and as 
gravitation varies as the masses of the volumes, it varies 
as the cubes of the diameters. And therefore the ten- 
dency of light pressure to drive a particle against the force 
of gravitation — the distances being equal — becomes greater the 
smaller the particle is. It will be of interest to note that 
this law also explains the phenomenon of a comet's tail with 
its great velocity, extending in a direction away from the 
sun. 

Arrhenius calculates that it would require only fourteen 
months of radiation pressure for such an organism, upon be- 
ing detached from the earth, to reach even the distant planet 
Neptune. And, unless arrested in its journey by some inter- 
vening body, it would reach our nearest stellar neighbor, re- 
garded as the centre of a neighboring solar system, in nine 
thousand years. To be thus driven onward by radiation pres- 
sure, he finds, according to deductions of Schwarzschild, these 
supposed organisms, if spherical, could be .00016 mm. 
(.0000064 or TT^T"^ inch) in diameter, though some get 
slightly different results. And there are some organisms, such 
as spores of bacteria, known to be but little larger than that. 
And, as he points out, it is not impossible that smaller or- 
ganisms, not yet discovered, do exist, positing which, this 
theory might be supposed to become workable. At least, as 
far as the mere physical possibility is concerned, such transmis- 
sion might in itself not be inconceivable. Arrhenius, further, 
then makes the following summary statement: *'In this man- 
ner life may have been transplanted for eternal ages from 
solar system to solar system and from planet to planet of the 
same system. But as among the billions of grains of pollen 
which the wind carries away from a large tree — a fir-tree, for 
instance — only one may on an average give birth to a new 
tree, thus of the billions, or perhaps trillions, of germs which 
the radiation pressure drives out into space, only one may 
really bring life to a foreign planet on which life had not yet 
arisen, and become the originator of living beings on that 
planet" {Worlds in the Making, p. 229). In the closing para- 
graph of his treatment of this subject, Arrhenius, however, 



MaterialisTus Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 45 

even himself expresses doubts as to whether any actual demon- 
stration of his theory will ever be made. 

It is, of course, readily seen that there are obstacles that 
would enter into such a transmission of organisms, that it 
would be very difficult to overcome, such as temperature, al- 
ready noted, influence of the various radiations of light and 
heat, persistence or non-persistence of life, etc. Then, too, this 
theory must assume that these organisms are detached from 
a planet against gravity, etc., and driven into space by some 
unexplained power, such as that of an electric discharge of 
some kind. It also assumes that within each one of them 
are all the potentialities for the development of the marvel- 
ously complex flora and fauna of a fully developed world. In- 
deed, it supposes that the forms of life in all worlds would 
be the same under the same or similar conditions. 

What a stretch of the imagination is required to make this 
theory workable! It presupposes the matching of far-fetched 
theoretical deductions with cosmic facts. The fact is, that 
we are by no means even certain whether our scientific theories 
as to the constitution of the interstellar ether, and even as 
to matter, energ}^, electricity and gravitation, correspond 
to reality. But of this we shall speak later. And, in examin- 
ing this theory in relation to the law of causality, we are 
amazed at the amount of faith required in every step from 
a life-germ's supposed detachment from one world to its fully 
evolved flora and fauna in another. And this faith must be 
all the greater when it stretches after such a migratory or- 
ganism between far distant stellar systems. Surely, reason 
must here be superseded by a faith that is far more difficult of 
acceptance than the Christian's faith in the life-creating and 
life-sustaining God. 

As a mere scientific hypothesis, the theory of Arrhenius is, 
however, by far the most suggestive and plausible one on 
panspermia that has yet been ofl[ered in explanation of the 
origin of life on this planet from a purely physical standpoint. 

4 THE COSMOZOIC HYPOTHESIS INADEQUATE TO EXPLAIN 
life's, ULTIMATE ORIGIN 

This theory of panspermia, in its various modified forms, 
may seem erudite and somewhat satisfying to those who would 



46 Creation Ex Nihil 

pass up the need of the Almighty in accounting for the uni- 
verse. And yet, even though one would accept it, it would 
not solve for him the problem of life's origin, any more than 
does the theory of pure materialism, more generally so-called. 
But even this theory fails of its apparent purpose. For how- 
ever far backwards in time or outwards in space one might 
trace the origin of earth's primal germ or germs of life, and 
however great the number of successive steps in these supposed 
waftings of germ-life from body to body, the ever-recurring 
question would still be. Whence that most outward link in 
the succession of life's chain? In implying successive trans- 
missions of life, it necessarily implies a first transmission, and 
a first or primal life as the beginning of life's supposed in- 
definite chain. And if it be contended that this surely must 
have been of spontaneous generation from molecular or atomic 
combinations and motions, then we would reply that this brings 
us no nearer to the solution of the origin of life than if we 
had stayed in the lap of mother earth. Indeed, it would only 
complicate the problem of life's origin. And to hold that 
such dependent life has existed from eternity, as Arrhenius 
and some others do, is only to make it serve as a premise for 
reasoning; but such a premise is necessarily erroneous, as ex- 
plained elsewhere. Moreover, no number of successive re- 
movals of life's origin from body to body could push it back 
into the infinite either of time or of space, as no number of 
removals or steps, however far or long, can make up an in- 
finite, as we shall more fully show. But every step would 
bring us only nearer to the first step, beyond which there 
could be no other; namely, to the First Cause of life, an 
infinite Will — as we hope to prove. And, of course, in that 
ultimate sense of life, life has always existed; that is, in Him 
Who is back of all temporal life in the universe — whatever 
the theory of life — the life-giving, life-creating Life of the 
Cause of all. 

Moreover, the presence or operation of that Life or Will 
at each successive step would be no less real, though perhaps 
less direct, than at the origination and starting on its sup-* 
posed long journey of life in its primal germ — according to 
this theory — as will be clearly shown later. Its very trans- 
mission from body to body would even imply the energy of the 
great Energizer or Transmitter, the source of all energy. At 



MaterialisTns Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 47 

every step and at every point of the supposed transmissions, 
we should be in the presence, and feel the pulse-beats, of the 
life of Him Who is immanent in — as also He must neces- 
sarily transcend — all nature and everything within it, Himself 
the only ultimate life, as He is life's only source. Even in 
such a consideration the words of the Psalmist are true, 
"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee 
from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art 
there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there" (Ps. 
139:7-8). 

5 THE THEORY OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION EXAMINED 
AND FOUND INADEQUATE 

We should not need in this connection to discuss this 
point as to the origin of life much further, especially as to 
the once partly accepted doctrine of spontaneous generation or 
abiogenesisy or even of an artificial production of life. We 
should sa)^, hovv-ever, that, since its explosion by such men 
as Pasteur, Liebig, Tyndall, et ah, this theory would now have 
gone into "innocuous desuetude" as a scientific hypothesis were 
it not for its revival by men like Jacques Loeb, et al. Of one 
thing, however, we are certain, that life from life, and all 
life indirectly, and primal life directly, from the creative power 
of an infinite Will — yea from Him Who is Life indeed — is 
an intelligible explanation of this otherwise inexplicable phe- 
nomenon. Chemistry cannot produce it, nor can philosophy 
explain it. It exists and challenges explanation as the great- 
est and most solemn of all facts. And if it be held, as has 
been asserted, that the whole material cosmos is itself one 
vast chemical and vital laboratory, in which every phenome- 
non of nature, including life, is produced or generated, then 
even that very assertion itself would imply a mighty immaterial 
ever-operating Chemist. 

The testimony of a few recognized men of science on this 
point should give double force to our argument. Lord Kelvin 
expressed himself very emphatically against the theory that, 
under certain meteorological conditions in the past, dead mat- 
ter might have been crystallized or have run together, or 
might now run together, into "germs of life" or "organic 
cells" or "protoplasm." So, in his Preface to Worlds in the 



48 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Making, page xiv., Arrhenius, whom we have already quoted, 
who of course holds that life has existed from eternity, also 
expresses himself very decidedly against the theory of spon- 
taneous generation, as follows: "Some kind of 'spontaneous 
generation,' origination of life from inorganic matter, had 
been acquiesced in. But just as the dreams of a spontaneous 
generation of energy, i. e., of a perpetuum mobile — have been 
dispelled by the negative results of all experiments in that 
direction, just in the same way we shall have to give up the 
idea of a spontaneous generation of life after all the repeated 
disappointments in this field of investigation." And no less 
emphatic against the artificial production of life are the fol- 
lowing words of Sir Oliver Lodge: "Many have been the 
attempts to generate life de rtovo^ by packing together suitable 
materials and keeping them pleasantly warm for a long time; 
but, where all germs of pre-existing life have rigorously been 
excluded, the attempt hitherto has been a failure: so far, no 
life has made its appearance under observation, except from 
antecedent life" {Life and Matter, 1905, p. 171). 

Indeed, even E. A. Schafer, the famous professor of physi- 
ology at Edinburgh, though a pronounced advocate of the 
materialistic theory of life, considers the theory of spontaneous 
generation, in its older form at least, untenable. Thus in his 
Presidential Address before the British Association, Dundee, 
Sept. 5, 19 1 2, he expressed himself on this point as follows: 
"I am myself so entirely convinced of the accuracy of the 
results which Pasteur obtained . . . that I do not hesitate to 
believe, if living torulae or mycelia are exhibited to me in 
flasks which had been subjected to prolonged boiling after 
being hermetically sealed, that there has been some fallacy 
either in the premises or in the carrying out of the operation. 
The appearance of organisms in such flasks would not furnish 
to my mind proof that they were the result of spontaneous 
generation. Assuming no fault in manipulation or fallacy in 
observation, I should find it simpler to believe that the germs 
of such organisms have resisted the effects of prolonged heat 
than that they became generated spontaneously" {Nature, Vol. 
XC, p. 10). 

It might be said, however, that, while Prof. Schafer rejects 
the theory of a so-called spontaneous generation of life, he 
believes it not impossible to produce life by artificial or chemical 



Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 49 

means. And, In speaking of the supposed ultimate origin of 
living matter from lifeless material, he was nevertheless moved 
to say, "In spite of the dictum omne vivum e vivo, there was 
certainly a period in the history of the earth when our planet 
could have supported no kind of life, as we understand the 
word; there can, therefore, exist no difference of opinion upon 
this point among scientific thinkers." And this is the natural 
and necessary conclusion of materialism as to the origin of 
life. Indeed, if the existence of a creative Will back of nature 
is denied, what other alternative as to life's origin could be 
possible? Thus, though one may reject the older form of 
the theory of spontaneous generation, unless he accepts the 
factor of a creative Will to make the origin of life possible, 
he must assume that life at some time, under favorable condi- 
tions, originated from some evolutionary process In Inorganic 
nature. As the impossibility of this has already been pointed 
out we shall not further discuss it. 

And If the other horn of the dilemma were seized — that 
dependent life had no beginning^ as is the case with some 
of the advocates of the theory of panspermia — the implication 
would be that there must be two eternal, and even dependent, 
entitles, matter and life. But, as will be shown in the next 
chapter, there can be only one eternal entity, and that must 
be a spiritual essence, or Life absolute. 

Moreover, to continue our consideration of a supposed pos- 
sible natural origin of life, we hold that, even though a case 
of so-called spontaneous generation were in the future to be 
discovered, that should shake no man's faith in the necessary 
existence of a Creator as the ultimate Cause. Such supposed 
spontaneous generation would no more be really spontaneous 
than any so-called accidental event really occurs by accident. 
Law or method, the operations of secondary causes endowed 
with the necessary potentialities for the production of life, 
would no less be back of such generated life. If we could 
trace the same. And such generation would, therefore, be 
only a creating or bringing forth by processes or methods of 
the Creator through secondary causes not thitherto known, 
but perhaps even yet operative in nature. And, although the 
assertion could easily be misinterpreted, even If by chemical 
or artificial means life could thus be produced, it would have 
to be In accordance with methods and by potencies which the 



50 Creation Ex Nihil o 

Author of nature Himself placed there. Man would be dis- 
covering only a hitherto unknown method of His operations, or 
reading another thought after Him in His creation. But, 
while such a discovery should shake no one's faith, we are 
not in the least considering its possibility. 

Indeed, it would appear as unlikely that life can spring 
from, or be generated by, matter, as that matter can spring 
from, or be generated by, life. This latter should seem to 
be, if anything, the more natural hypothesis, especially if life 
be viewed as a distinct and higher entity, totally different 
from matter. And yet, this is not true even as to matter. 
But as to the mere question whether life is the cause or the 
effect of organization, it is surely the former rather than 
the latter. Thus life would antedate organization, and there- 
fore organized matter. And in the application of this thought 
to our thesis it is readily seen, as will more fully be shown 
in our next chapter, that life or spirit, as the First Cause, must 
have existed before matter, and must therefore have existed 
from eternity. And, of course, in its final analysis it might 
in a sense be said that matter emanates from or is preceded 
by ultimate Life, the creative Source both of all matter and 
of all secondary or derived life, as well as of all energy in 
the universe. 



D THE THEORY OF NATURE AS A LIVING ORGANISM INADE- 
QUATE TO ACCOUNT FOR LIFE 

There are men who hold that the material universe itself 
is one vast living organism and that everything within it is 
alive, probably as the result of physical operations. Thus 
all matter would be permeated with life; and motion or vibra- 
tion would be its manifestation. But even this fanciful theory, 
which does, however, not strictly come under materialism, can 
no more explain life and its origin than any other — no more 
than it can explain even matter and its origin. If the 
universe were all, as it would have to be unless it had been 
created, it would have to be self-existent and absolute. But 
as it is finite and can, therefore, not be all, as we shall show, 
it could not be self-existent and absolute. And, if it were con- 
ceded that it is not all, it would have to be a created universe : 
and thus our point would need no further defense, as that is 



Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 51 

our contention. Then, moreover, all else as to the origin 
of matter, energy, life and mind, might as well be acknowl- 
edged by the objector. If it was created, then no matter how 
long ago, it must have been a creation out of nothing. And, 
no matter by what processes it came into its present cosmic 
form, it also would have had to be directly or indirectly by 
the same Power by which it had first been called into its 
primal being. And that Power that created it and fashioned 
it into a cosmos was its Creator, the Being Whom the Chris- 
tian Scriptures reveal as God. Hence, even this fanciful 
theory of life and the universe must fall. 

Again, there is a modified form of the above theory; namely, 
that the life of the universe is the indwelling Deity. Thus, 
in the language of poetry, 

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole, 
Whose body Nature is and God the soul." 
(Pope: Essay on Man.) 

The elements of such a theory appear already in some of 
the writings of Sir Isaac Newton. And since his day there 
have been various speculations along this line: and this is, 
of course, a very delightful and fruitful field for such specula- 
tion. Very suggestive and rather beautiful is the somew^hat 
modified form of such a theory, as expressed by Sir Oliver 
Lodge in the following words: "It has been surmised . . . 
that just as the corpuscles and atoms of matter, in their in- 
tricate movements and relations, combine to form the brain- 
cell of a human being; so the cosmic bodies, the planets and 
suns and other groupings of the ether, may perhaps combine 
to form something corresponding, as It were, to the brain- 
cell of some transcendent Mind" {Life and Matter j p. 97). 
Sir Isaac Newton also suggested this universe brain-cell idea 
for the indwelling Deity. 

Though this theory also does not really come under ma- 
terialism as such, nevertheless, because of its relation to the 
above, w^e shall briefly speak of it here. As Poetry this theory 
has some attraction, but as philosophy, weighed In the balance 
of matter-of-fact reason, it is readily found wanting. In a 
sense this is only a refined pantheism. According to this 
theory, man would really be a part of God. And, of course. 



52 Creation Ex Nihilo 

In so far as man is a sinner, God would be a sinner. Thus 
God would not be perfect nor absolute, while absoluteness 
and perfection are necessary attributes of God. But there is 
another fallacy in this theory; namely, that, if its God were 
conterminous with the universe, as its advocates hold. He 
would necessarily be finite, because the universe is finite, as 
we shall demonstrate. The finiteness of such a God was even 
already implied in the statement above that He would not 
be perfect nor absolute. And, if it be contended that space 
relations could not be ascribed to such a spiritual entity 
(which in a sense is true), so as to speak of Him as finite 
because confined within a finite universe, then we must re- 
mind the advocates of this theory that their fallacy lies in thus 
confining Him, and that they thus ascribe to this God-soul a 
finite body, or a finite brain. A God as the soul of the finite 
universe as His body or brain would not only not be infinite 
nor absolute, but such a conception would be a near approach 
to a monstrosity. This form of the theory, therefore, also is 
found wanting. 

7 materialism's necessary fatalism fatal to itself 

Another fact that is destructive of the purely materialistic 
explanation of nature is its necessary fatalism. If every- 
thing were caused by inflexible laws working with deadly 
precision, then all things, including even all human thoughts 
and acts, would be what they are by unavoidable necessity. 
There would, therefore, be no moral action nor any moral ac- 
countability. Even murder and every other wrong, every 
impulse of love and every deed of progress, every creation of 
the imagination bodied forth in poetry or fiction and every 
hope and aspiration of the soul, as well as every thought and 
adoration of a Deity, would be the result of law. Hence, it 
is only to be expected that materialists, like Laplace and 
Haeckel, are determinists. 

This determinism is seen in expressions by Haeckel, al- 
ready quoted. To these we shall add the following very 
definite declaration: "Another psychological dogma, the be- 
lief in man's free-will, is equally inconsistent with the truth 
of evolution. . . . Theoretically, determinism, or the doctrine 
of the necessary character of our volitions, was established long 



Materialism's Explanation of the Universe Inadequate 53 

ago" {Last Words on Evolution, pp. 103-104). 

What confusion in the moral order of the world such a 
theory naturally implies ! Why commend or punish ; why love 
or hate; why delight in the creations of the imagination or 
in the material progress of the race; why even strive to know 
and grow — if all things must come to pass by a fatalistic ne- 
cessity? Ah, we hear the whispered answer, Because these 
acts themselves are predetermined by Inflexible laws! Well, 
then, If so be that all things are from necessity, what Is the 
cause of such necessity — what Is it that necessitates? Surely, 
then, as the soul by necessity conceives of and worships a 
Deity, that Deity must by the same necessity be a reality. 
Or else, by one act of necessity there would be a God and 
by another act of the same necessity there would be no God. 
Thus necessity would by necessity nullify or contradict it- 
self, or there would have to be two necessities in eternal an- 
tagonism. The same necessity would issue in murder and Its 
condemnation and punishment. It would in one individual ap- 
prove, and in another disapprove. In one it would assert the 
existence of God, and in another deny His existence. In one 
it would hold to the philosophy of necessity or materialistic 
determinism, and in another it would reject that philosophy. 
And, supposedly, this argument of ours against materialistic 
necessity would necessarily be an act of necessity. 

Any such philosophy is thus seen to be self-contradictory and 
self-destructive, and therefore not worthy of even further con- 
sideration. Surely, this alone should be an unanswerable argu- 
ment against the materialistic explanation of the universe, as 
logically Issuing in the self-contradictory and absurd doctrine 
of necessity as applied to man. 

While there is some foundation in nature's unerring laws for 
such a doctrine of necessity as to the operations of nature, no 
one has any right to claim for it universal application to the 
exclusion of an immanent and transcendent creative and direct- 
ing Deity, and to volition of the designing human mind. As 
the will of man transcends the ordinary operations of nature, 
so must some supreme Will transcend the operations of the 
universal whole. 

Moreover, to declare that an act of a Deity in creation no 
less implies necessity in aU creatures, is to deny freedom of 
action to such a Being Himself, Or else it assumes that He 



54 Creation Ex Nihilo 

must have created all things with an Imposed necessity. It 
should be sufficient to say that a free or absolute Creator can 
surely create beings with power of choice, and therefore morally 
accountable. And this Is exactly what the Mosaic account of 
creation declares He did with reference to man — ^whom He 
created In His own Image. 

Thus, to him who would explain God away from His uni- 
verse and rely solely upon his own reason for the solution of 
the great question of reality and origin, there arises difficulty 
after difficulty of ever-Increasing magnitude. Sphinx-like the 
universe stands before him with ever-Increasing mystery, be- 
fore which the pride of man might well bow and submit to 
the Revelation of the eternal Word. 



CHAPTER III 

THREE POSTULATES AS TO A FIRST AND NEC- 
ESSARILY ETERNAL EXISTENCE 

In our last chapter we pointed out some of the fallacies 
in the arguments in defense of materialism. In this chapter 
we shall begin to consider the subject rather from the positive 
side, at the same time further answering objections and argu- 
ments of those who do not accept the doctrine of a creation 
out of nothing. 

The objection has been made that the Christian, basing his 
faith upon the Scriptures, also assumes something as a start- 
ing point; namely, what he calls Godj as over against the 
materialist's eternal matter. Let us now proceed to analyze 
this objection and point out its total invalidity. By a process 
of elimination, virtually amounting to a demonstration, we 
hope thus to show that the universe must necessarily have 
been God-created. 

There can be only three postulates as to a possibly first 
and therefore necessarily eternal existence. One may postulate 
the eternal existence of mind or spirit alone, or the Christian's 
God, as the intelligent First Cause Who created all things. 
One might postulate the eternal existence of matter alone, 
from w^hich the universe arose by a supposed indefinite series 
of developments. Or, one might postulate the eternal co- 
existence of both spirit, or God, and matter. But in each 
case he must postulate an eternal existence; or else he would 
find himself In the dilemma that that first existence, which- 
ever it be, had its being begun in time, sprung from nothing, 
and therefore without any cause. 

I POSTULATE OF ETERNAL CO-EXISTENCE OF 
SPIRIT AND MATTER UNTENABLE 

Taking the last postulate, that of the eternal co-existence 
of mind or spirit (God) and matter, it will readily be seen 

55 



56 Creation Ex Nihil o 

that, regarding matter merely as a unitj such would give us 
two first causes instead of one, and these two totally different. 
Then, too, it would be making matter an absolute existence 
together with spirit, thus giving us two absolutes, and these 
two totally different. But, by the very nature of an abso- 
lute, there can be only one absolute, or else each would have 
to have a necessary relation to the other and would therefore, 
in being thus relative, cease to be absolute. Moreover, to 
make matter an absolute would be making that absolute which 
by its very nature must be finite, as we shall show in our next 
two chapters. But no finite can be absolute, for finiteness 
implies limitation; and what is limited is relative and not abso- 
lute. And, if it be contended that matter is infinite, then 
we should have two infinites as causes, and these two different 
and in a sense mutually excluding each other, which is an 
impossibility. 

But it might be argued that matter need not necessarily be 
absolute or independent, but that God or spirit and matter 
might be regarded as having existed from eternity, related as 
absolute or independent and relative, dependent or conditioned. 
But this again would be a contradiction. For, then, a con- 
ditioned or dependent would be made eternal, whereas the 
very terms conditioned and dependent imply a time or cause 
or purpose of conditioning. The term eternal can therefore 
not be applied to a dependent or conditioned. So the terms 
conditioned and dependent cannot be applied to an eternal. 
Therefore, to speak of conditioned matter as eternal, in con- 
junction with spirit, would be self-contradictory. Therefore, 
matter, thus related, cannot be eternal, unless it could be proved 
also to be unconditioned and infinite, which is impossible, as we 
shall see. And, even if it were unconditioned and infinite, it 
alone could be so, as seen above. This last postulate, that of 
the eternal co-existence of spirit, or God, and matter, must, 
therefore, necessarily fall. 

II POSTULATE OF ETERNAL EXISTENCE OF 
MATTER ALONE UNTENABLE 

Taking, now, the second postulate, that of the eternal exist- 
ence of matter alone, we shall find the arguments against this 
postulate equally unanswerable. 



Three Postulates 57 

That something has always existed is a self-evident truth. 
We know that something does now exist, ourselves included. 
We know also that something cannot come from nothing, for 
there can be no effect without a cause, and one that is adequate. 
Therefore, because the universe exists and is governed by ap- 
parently unvarying laws, there have been thinkers in all ages 
who have considered the universe itself, or at least its material 
basis, to be that eternal something. If that were so, it could 
not be an effect ; and, therefore, for it there would have been 
no cause. And to this belief many of the discoveries of mod- 
ern science have added their apparent testimony. Thus the 
law of the conservation of matter and energy, as indeed the 
general uniformity of nature with her myriad laws, has gone 
a long way toward establishing some scientific philosophers 
and philosophic scientists in what might be called their scien- 
tific faith of the eternity of matter. Thus, in the Berlin Dis- 
cussions, February, 1907, Prof. Plate was moved to make the 
following declaration: "We scientists maintain that matter 
exists, that nothing is formed out of nothing, and that matter 
is everlasting. We cannot accept the theory that matter was 
created, and if we did accept it, we should be no better off. 
We are modest enough to dispense with a further solution of 
this problem" (Wasmann: The Problem of Evolution, p. 96). 

It, of course, goes without saying that this is merely an 
assumption, but that it proves nothing. The implied reason- 
ing seems logical enough; but, as it is based upon unproved 
premises, its conclusions are untrustworthy. In short, it is 
a begging of the question; but the solution of the question is 
acknowledged to be beyond this scientist's reach. Such a con- 
clusion on the part of this and other materialistic scientists 
is, of course, an inference from the so-called law of the con- 
servation of substance, as comprehending both matter and 
energy. It is, therefore, quite a natural conclusion, viewed 
from the merely human angle and from this mere point of 
time and space in the universal all. But whether this con- 
clusion would hold from the view-point of eternity and before 
the comprehensive whole is another question. 

According to the law of the conservation or indestructibility 
of matter, proposed by A. L. Lavoisier in 1789, the amount 
of matter in the universe is supposedly a constant quantity, 
however it may change or vary in form. Thus the mass of 



58 Creation Ex Nihilo 

the universe cannot by known artificial means be added to nor 

can it be reduced; or, as it is generally expressed, "Mass can 
neither be created nor destroyed." So, according to the law 
of the conservation or indestructibility of energy, proposed by 
Robert Mayer in 1842, and more fully developed by different 
scientists since, the sum of all the forms of energy in the uni- 
verse is a constant quantity, regardless of its various forms and 
transmutations, or "Energy can neither be created nor de- 
stroyed." This should also, of course, be modified by adding, 
by any artificial means knov^n to man. 

That there is such a thing as a conservation of matter and 
of energy no one attempts to deny. But it must be em- 
phasized that this conservation necessarily belongs, and is lim- 
ited, to that in which it exists; namely, the present order of 
nature, in that part more especially known to man. For the 
unerring operations of a closed system, it must scientifically be 
considered as sufficiently true as a postulate for reason and ac- 
tion in the infinitesimal span of human life. Thus, in the 
words of James Weir, speaking of the law of the conservation 
of energy, "The finger of Nature ever points to closed energy 
circuits, to the earth as a complete and conservative system in 
which energy, mutable to the highest degree with respect to 
its plurality of form, attains to the perfection of permanence 
in its essential character and amount" ( The Energy System of 
the Universe, 1912, p. 20o). 

But whether this law of the conservation of matter and 
of energy is true for the whole universe, and for even a 
closed system for all time, is far from established. Science 
has not yet furnished us with sufficient data to determine the 
universality of this law, as is more and more being acknowl- 
edged. Thus, Dr. S. Lawrence Bigelow, after having in a 
few sentences expressed the law of the conservation of energy, 
makes the following statement: "These sentences are open 
to objections, stating as fact more than we really know to be 
fact. We do not know how much energy there is in the uni- 
verse. We do not even know how many different kinds of 
energy there are. We do not know what conditions prevail 
on other planets or fixed stars, or beyond the fixed stars, yet 
within that broad term we use so glibly the 'universe.' We 
ought to append to these statements a modifying phrase such 
as, 'as far as our experiences have taught us' " ( Theoretical 



Three Postulates 59 

and Physical Chemistry, 1912, p. 26). Of similar import 
are his words in connection with the statement of the law of 
the conservation of mass, as follows "These statements are 
open to the same objections as those brought against the state- 
ments of the law of the conservation of energy. They say 
more than we really know, although they are based upon an 
enormous number of experiments. The same qualifying phrase 
should be added, 'as far as our experience has taught us' " 
{Ibid., p. 29). 

This law of conservation in its wider sense is, moreover, not 
necessarily so absolute even here as to preclude the possibility 
of being set aside for the annihilation of the present order; 
nor does it afford any real evidence for the eternal existence of 
that order in the past. These and other laws of nature per- 
tain to the existing universe. If the universe had a begin- 
ning — as we hope to prove — they must necessarily have begun 
either with the universe or at a later stage of its existence. 
And if the universe will have an end, as is only too manifest 
from its own evidence — as we shall see — these laws must surely 
end with it. Their presence in nature is, therefore, not the 
slightest evidence either that the universe was eternal and un- 
created in the past or that it will be eternal and indestructible 
in the future. And, in the face of the overw^helming proofs to 
the contrary, they constitute only an argument of straw in an 
attempt to reason out of existence the Almighty Will before 
and above and beyond the material universe, by Whom that 
universe exists. These and other laws of nature thus afford 
no evidence whatever that matter is eternal, or that it either is, 
or is the cause of, all existence. There are several impossible, 
even contradictory, things implied in this postulate, in the light 
of which it is totally untenable, as we shall now proceed to 
show. 



I THIS POSTULATE IMPLIES A CONTRADICTORY MULTIPLICITY 
QF FIRST CAUSES 

This postulate of the eternal existence of matter alone would 
really be multipljdng the number of first causes, which, in the 
final analysis, might be considered as numerous as the number 
of infinitesimal particles, whether spoken of as atoms, or by 
whatever other names. This would, of course, make eternal 



6o Creation Ex Nihilo 

all these necessarily mutually interdependent particles, which 
is contrary to what may be regarded as almost a philosophic 
axiom; namely, that a conditioned or depe|ident existence can- 
not be self-existent or eternal. Moreover, to speak of more 
than one first cause, would be absurd, as only one could be 
first. And, if there were numerous such supposed causes 
eternally operating in the development of the universal cosmos, 
their separate operations would necessarily have to be a co- 
operation. Such co-operation, or joint operation, of number- 
less causes would surely be unspeakably wonderful, especially 
when considered in the light of the marvelous unity and uni- 
formity of nature amidst its almost infinite variety and com- 
plexity. For them thus to work together it would require 
intelligence on the part of every infinitesimal cause. Indeed, 
because everything in nature's complex constitution is so re- 
lated to everything else as to affect all and be affected by all, 
it would require well nigh infinite intelligence on the part of 
every such supposed cause. It would, moreover, require on 
their part also absolute unanimity of purpose and perfect har- 
mony of operation to produce such a purposeful and purposive 
universe. But, surely, not even the wildest dreamer or enthu- 
siastic nature-worshiper should ever ascribe to nature's ultimate 
particles or causes any such attributes. To account for nature 
thus, would practically be making divinities of every particle 
of matter; and, therefore instead of eliminating God from the 
universe, it would almost infinitely multiply the number of 
gods. And yet, this is what Ernst Haeckel, et aL, have prac- 
tically done. To the ether, or its ultimate particles, they thus 
ascribe consciousness, will, etc., to make their theories work- 
able. Thus, in an attempt to get rid of the mystery of the one 
self-existent absolute God as the great First Cause, some men 
have been led into the most palpable absurdities; while the 
mystery of cause and origin only deepens, and the difficulties of 
their explanation rise in ever-increasing greatness, before the 
astonished investigator, at every step. 

It should, moreover, be said here that such a multiplica- 
tion of supposed first causes, in necessarily implying finiteness 
of number — as we shall see — ^would also imply interdepen- 
dence among them. And this would contradict the idea of 
first or independent cause (or causes), as it would also con- 
tradict this postulate as to the eternity of matter; for eternal 



Three Postulates 6l 

existence necessarily implies independence. But more of this 

matter of cause later, when we shall consider it in all its 
bearings on this subject. It will thus be seen that, instead of 
making our problem easier, this postulate would make it all 
the more complex. 

Let us further consider some facts already partly developed 
in stating the position of materialism, in so far as these di- 
rectly afford an additional cumulative and convincing argument 
against the tenableness of this postulate. They thus indirectly 
and in anticipation also amount to a practical demonstration 
that the first postulate — that of the eternal existence of spirit 
alone — is not only tenable but must incontrovertibly be true, 
and that, therefore, the universe is temporal and God-created. 



2 THIS POSTULATE IMPLIES THE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT ALL 
ENERGY, LIFE AND MIND HAVE SPRUNG FROM MATTER 

This postulate of the eternal existence of matter alone 
would imply that all those subtle forces and agencies of na- 
ture, or by which nature may be said to operate, are the result 
of development. And yet the same reasoning that would make 
matter eternal would also make energy eternal. On this 
point Ernst Haeckel is only scientifically consistent when he 
makes the following declaration: "Both these great laws — 
in physics, the fundamental law of the conservation of energy, 
and in chemistry, of the conservation of matter — may be 
brought under one philosophical conception as the law of 
the conservation of substance; for, according to our monistic 
conception, energy and matter are inseparable, being only dif- 
ferent inalienable manifestations of one single universal being 
— substance" {Monism, pp. 17-18). And yet, in his Riddle of 
the Universej speaking of the cause or nature of energy and 
life, he inadvertently makes them dependent upon matter or 
material movements, as illustrated in the quotation given be- 
low. 

This postulate would mean even that all life, including the 
human mind with its subtle powers and attributes, of some 
of which we are only beginning to catch glimpses, is also a 
generation from dead matter, by the Interaction of its Infini- 
tesimal particles, through long cycles of evolution. Among 



62 Creation Ex Nihilo 

prominent advocates of this view may be mentioned such 
well-known men of science as Huxley, Spencer, Bain, Mole- 
schott, Vogt, Biichner and Haeckel. 

It is, of course, almost needless to say that, according to 
materialistic monism, all energy, life and mind are develop- 
ments from, or manifestations of, matter as the only reality. 
Haeckel, the greatest authority on monism, expresses himself 
thus: "Experience has never yet discovered for us a single 
immaterial substance, a single force which is not dependent on 
matter, or a single form of energy which is not exerted by 
material movement, whether it be of mass, or of ether, or of 
both. Even the most elaborate and most perfect forms of 
energy that we know — the psychic life of the higher animals, 
the thought and reason of man — ^depend on material processes, 
or changes in the neuroplasm of the ganglionic cells; they are 
inconceivable apart from such modifications" {Riddle of the 
Universe J p. 22i). 

This author thus reasons upon the supposed absolute data of 
experience, as if human experience were unlimited in its scope 
and nature. The argument is therefore inconclusive. More- 
over, to say definitely, without proper modification, that psychic 
life, thought and reason depend upon material processes, is 
to assume in a sentence that which has puzzled philosophers 
in all ages as an unsolved, and indeed insolvable, problem. 
That psychic life, thought and reason are in some way re- 
lated to or generally associated with physical processes is 
beyond question; but that relation need not be one of effect 
and cause any more than it is one of cause and effect. Further 
we need not here answer this statement, except to say that 
it proves nothing. 

A Arguments For Eternity of Matter Equally Valid For 
Eternity of Life and Mind 

Not only does the reasoning that would make matter eternal 
also make energy eternal, but it would also make life and 
the soul eternal. Thus Soddy is as consistent on this point as 
is Haeckel above, when he says: "Deep down somewhere in 
the processes of thought the ultimate test of reality appears 
to be the Law of Conservation. Does the soul exist? If 
so, it must be immortal. Is matter real or a mere impression 



Three Postulates 63 

of the mind? It cannot be created or destroyed, and there- 
fore has an existence apart from the mind. Lastly, has energy 
a specific existence, or is it merely a convenient abstraction? 
Energy is conceived like matter, and therefore obeys this 
test of objective existence" {Matter and Energy, p. 41). 

Thus, it is seen that the same evidence that is appealed to 
to prove matter to be eternal, might with equal force also be 
used to prove energy and life and mind to be eternal. And 
yet, according to our postulate that matter alone is eternal — 
to which most of these men subscribe — energy, life and mind 
must be a development from matter, and hence of later origin 
than their material basis. 

But that is precisely the point at issue: whether matter, and 
matter alone, is eternal, and whether energy, life and mind 
have sprung from matter. As already intimated, that matter 
does exist, who can with certainty deny? But that it is the 
sole original existence, or that of which all other existence 
is but a manifestation, who can affirm? Nay, rather, that 
it does not exist alone and is therefore not the only existence, 
or that which caused all other supposed existence or of which 
it is only a manifestation, is a truth to which every mani- 
festation of life and mind bears witness. Descartes' dictum, 
CogitOj ergo sum, expressing the consciousness of his separate 
certain existence as a personality, regardless even of whether 
matter exists, is true and applicable the world over. Human 
consciousness everjrwhere testifies that mind or personality is 
something different from matter. This fact of human con- 
sciousness, that the perceiving personality is something different 
from the materials perceived, is well expressed in the following 
words of Tennyson: 

"The baby, new to earth and sky. 
What time his tender palm is prest 
Against the circle of the breast. 
Has never thought that 'This is F: 

"But, as he grows, he gathers much, 
And learns the use of T and *me,* 
And finds, *I am not what I see. 
And other than the things I touch.' 



64 Creation Ex Nihilo 

- "So rounds he to a separate mind 

From whence clear memory may begin; 
As, through the frame that binds him in, 
His isolation grows defined." 

{In Memoriam, XLV.) 

B More Than Matter in the Universe 

Every operation of life or act of mind in contravention of 
laws governing material nature, is a proof that here is a 
power not governed by purely physical laws and therefore 
a power or essence not of matter. The evidence is overwhelm- 
ing that there is more than matter in the universe. The uni- 
verse is greater, and includes more, than matter. 

The transcendental nature of life, or that it is an entity 
different from matter, should be as evident to the scientific 
investigator of the twentieth century as it was to the philo- 
sophic speculator before the birth of modern science. All the 
discoveries of modern science have not brought us any nearer 
the solution of the mystery of life than were our earlier gen- 
erations of thinkers. 

The mind or the soul is as much a reality as is matter. 
We cannot explain matter any more than we can explain the 
soul. Many scientists have fully realized this. Thus, Ernst 
Mach speaks as follows: "To us investigators, the concept 
*soul' is irrelevant and a matter for laughter. But matter is 
an abstraction of exactly the same kind, just as good and just 
as bad as it is. We know as much about the soul as we do 
of matter" {History and Root of the Principle of the Con- 
servation of Energy, Translated by Jourdain, 191 1, p. 48). 
In line with this statement of Mach are the following words, 
which are a slight modification of a toast reported to have 
been given by a man of science: 

What is mind? No matter. 

What is matter? Never mind. 

What is the difference between mind and matter? 

It is immaterial. 

The eminent geologist Joseph LeConte, in his lecture on 
Man: His Place in Nature, with equal frankness expressed 



Three Postulates 65 

his conviction that there is more in nature than matter or 
mere stuff, as follows: "As I have already stated, there are 
two poles of existence, without the recognition of which, philos- 
ophy is impossible; they may be variously represented as mat- 
ter and force, or matter and spirit, or Nature and God. Mat- 
ter is essential inertness^ spirit is essential activity. The very 
origin oi our notion of force is, I believe, the consciousness 
of our own mental energy. Matter reveals itself to our 
senses, but energy, or force, only to our consciousness. We 
then extend it to external Nature" {Religion and Science, pp. 
277-8). 

Other scientists were driven by their investigations to the 
same or similar conclusions, among them Du Bois-Reymond, 
Sir Oliver Lodge, Balfour Stewart, Alfred Russel Wallace, 
Cesare Lombroso and Peter Guthrie Tait, some of whom 
were led to even unwarranted conclusions in their specula- 
tions. But, even though several of these men were led into 
error on the opposite extreme, their testimony against the ex- 
istence of matter alone is none the less valuable in our discus- 
sion. 

C Matter An Inadequate Cause to Produce Life and Mind 

The evidence is thus overwhelming that there is more than 
matter in the universe. But, as already seen, dead matter 
cannot bring forth life without being itself impregnated with 
life. Harvey well said, Omne vivum e vivo. The stream 
cannot rise above its source; the effect cannot contain any- 
thing that was not potentially first in the cause. We are, 
of course, speaking of pure cause, unmixed with other, sec- 
ondary causes — a cause, moreover, that is not itself an ef- 
fect. Thus, also, if matter in the aggregate is not a pure 
cause, it must itself have to be an effect; and hence it must 
have been brought about by an antecedent cause, a cause that 
is therefore not matter. That is, as there would have been 
an antecedent cause for it, matter would necessarily have had 
its origin later than its immaterial cause, and therefore in 
time as reckoned from the supposed time, or rather eternity, 
of its cause — ^which is contrary to this postulate, that matter 
is eternal and that it is the only eternal existence. This reason- 
ing could therefore not be applied to a First Cause, or an un- 



66 Creation Ex Nihilo 

caused or absolute cause. The full force of this will presently 
appear. 

Some of the most eminent scientists, convinced that con- 
sciousness and mind cannot be accounted for or explained by- 
physical laws, have borne witness to their convictions. They 
have come to regard the step from energy to life, from matter 
to consciousness, an impossible one. All must acknowledge 
the impossibility of passing, by natural explanation or natural 
law, from an object of consciousness to the consciousness of an 
object. Thus, the great physicist John Tyndall was very 
pronounced in his conviction that "the passage from the 
physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of conscious- 
ness is inconceivable as a result of Mechanics" {Fragments of 
Science, Published by Appleton, 1915, Vol. IL, p. 87). And, 
he further said, "I do not think he [the materialist] is en- 
titled to say that his molecular groupings, and motions, ex- 
plain everything. In reality they explain nothing. The ut- 
most he can affirm is the association of two classes of phe- 
nomena, of whose real bond of union he is in absolute igno- 
rance" {Ibid,, p. 88). 

The evolutionist John Fiske also fully recognized the ina- 
bility of accounting for consciousness and the soul of man 
by material or physical forces. On this point he expressed 
himself as follows: "Whence came the soul we no more know 
than we know whence came the universe. The primal origin of 
consciousness is hidden in the depths of the bygone eternity. 
That it cannot possibly be the product of any cunning ar- 
rangement of material particles is demonstrated beyond per- 
adventure by what we now know of the correlation of physical 
forces. The Platonic view of the soul, as a spiritual sub- 
stance, an effluence from Godhood, ... is doubtless the view 
most consonant with the present state of our knowledge" ( The 
Destiny of Man, p. 42). 

It is needless to say that the above is a close approach, on 
the part of mere science or philosophy, to the Scriptural view. 
So convinced was this great thinker that mind is not the re- 
sult or efFect of molecular interaction or of any other physical 
cause whatsoever, that in his various works he repeatedly gives 
emphatic expression to this conviction. The physiologist John 
G. McKendrick in his great work, A Text Book on Physi- 



Three Postulates 67 

ology, apparently also recognizes the soul and consciousness as 
being altogether different from matter and energy, and not 
caused by or dependent upon them. 

Upon the subject of the origin of thought, a noted lecturer 
and writer on chemistry expresses himself in the following 
unambiguous words: "How can any rolling concourse of 
atoms thrill thought and consciousness into matter? It 
avails not how complex a system we conceive of flashing atoms 
and sub-atoms, for our chemistry cannot explain how thought 
arises from their motions and arrangements. ... A man is 
but an aggregate of material atoms — whirling, wheeling, col- 
liding — in ceaseless change. And Science, before she can pre- 
tend to have solved the problem of life, must explain how 
such a mere aggregate of so many pounds' weight of carbon, 
nitrogen, phosphorus, oxygen and hydrogen atoms can evolve 
thought and consciousness by the mere relative movement of 
these atoms" {Modem Chemistry and Its Wonders, 191 5, 
p. 22-23). Even Herbert Spencer, the great apostle of 
agnosticism, could not help but acknowledge that the conscious 
soul cannot be the fleeting collocation of material particles. 
Indeed, everywhere, especially in his Principles of Biology, 
he acknowledges that the manifestations of all life are un- 
known and unknowable, and cannot be explained by mere 
physical laws. 

D Life and Mind Necessarily From An Immaterial Super- 
natural, or Spiritual, Source 

As above shown, life is totally different from matter, and 
the mind or soul of man is a transcendental entity not sprung 
from matter. But, as these have not originated from matter, 
they must come from a source other than matter. Hence, even 
granted for the moment that matter is eternal, it is evident 
that this immaterial ultimate source of life and mind or 
soul — as it also did not come from matter — must also be 
eternal ; and this is contrary to our postulate, that matter alone 
is eternal. But we are, of course, far from conceding that 
matter is eternal, as all our argument is against its eternity. 

Nor is this immaterial source or cause of the origin of life 
and mind in conflict with really established science. Nay, 
r^ither, it is the only possible explanation to make them inr 



68 Creation Ex Nihilo 

telHglble. And, without the postulation of some spiritual 
Cause of life and mind or soul, even science would be found 
internally irreconcilable. This has also been acknowledged 
by some eminent scientists. Thus, Lord Kelvin, before the 
British AssociatioUj definitely declared that, instead of neither 
affirming nor denying creative power, as is often asserted, sci- 
ence positively affirms creative power, a fact which science 
compels as an article of belief. 

The same is in substance openly acknowledged by the 
chemist Robert Kennedy Duncan, as witness the following 
words: "The supposition that there was a guiding Intel- 
ligence working the synthesis of living matter without interfer- 
ing either with its chemistry or its energetics does not seem 
to be out of consonance with contemporary knowledge; it 
seems, indeed, to be the one reasonable, believable, and up- 
lifting theory of the origin of life" (Some Chemical Problems 
of To-Day, p. 104). And St. George Mivart also recognized 
this need of a spiritual origin of the soul of man, and, from 
the evolutionist's standpoint, made a somewhat plausible sug- 
gestion as to a possible reconciliation between Genesis and 
science, in the following words: "Scripture seems plainly to 
indicate this [difference of sources of body and spiritual soul] 
when it says that 'God made man from the dust of the earth, 
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.* This is a 
plain and direct statement that man's body was not created 
in the primary and absolute sense of the word, but was evolved 
from pre-existing material (symbolized by the term 'dust of 
the earth'), and was therefore only derivatively created j i. e., 
by the operation of secondary laws. His soul_, on the other 
hand, was created in quite a different way, not by any pre- 
existing means, external to God Himself, but by the direct 
action of the Almighty, symbolized by the term 'breathing' " 
{Genesis of Species, p. 300). A man need not go to the 
length of accepting Mivart's theory in full, especially as to the 
development of man's body, but that does not invalidate his 
testimony as to the origin of man's soul. Nay, rather, this 
testimony should have all the greater weight as it comes from 
one of the greatest of the advocates of the material evolution 
of man's body. 

Even Charles Darwin himself had to acknowledge the need 
of some creative Divinity back of the supposed first germs of 



Three Postulates 69 

life to make his theory of organic evolution workable. And 
to him a creation of life seemed all the more wonderful as 
he viewed it as having come from a few directly created 
primordial germs, endowed with the necessary potentialities 
for the evolving, by secondary agencies, into a world of de- 
veloped beautiful flora and fauna. He strikingly expressed 
this in the closing paragraph of the second volume of his work, 
The Origin of Species, as follows: "There is grandeur in this 
view of life, with its several powers, having been originally 
breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and 
that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the 
fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms 
most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being 
evolved" (Sixth Edition). 

Thus even the most ardent advocates of the inflexibility 
of nature's laws and of the scientific doctrine of evolution are 
compelled to acknowledge that life and mind or soul are 
totally different from matter, and that they must therefore 
somehow and at some time have been created by a Divinity. 
And this is in direct conflict with the necessary implication of 
this postulate of the eternal existence of matter alone — that 
energy, life and mind or soul have sprung from matter. 

3 THIS POSTULATE IMPLIES THAT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE 
IS INFINITE^ WHICH IS CONTRARY TO FACT 

To assume that matter alone is eternal is necessarily to 
assume it also to be infinite, or else we should be assuming 
the impossible, as already stated; namely, that a finite could 
be eternal and absolute. A finite is necessarily a caused ex- 
istence and must therefore have had a beginning. And, of 
course, if matter is finite it cannot be eternal and absolute. 
The very idea of finiteness or finitude implies infiniteness or 
infinitude; limitation or a limit implies a something limiting; 
dependence implies an independent and absolute. Thus, the 
very finiteness of matter, or of the universe, points to an 
infinity, within which, or by which, that finite physical uni- 
verse has its being, and therefore to another eternal exist- 
ence. This would be contrary to this postulate, that matter 
alone is eternal. 

But, in order to overcome this difficulty, many men have 



70 Creation Ex Nihilo 

therefore contended that the physical universe is infinite in 
extent, and that it is therefore properly absolute and eternal. 
As it would, however, be impossible to do justice to this con- 
tention, without entering upon a somewhat lengthy discus- 
sion, especially also as to the nature of cause, we shall con- 
sider this phase of the subject separately. 

We have thus seen that this postulate of the eternal exist- 
ence of matter alone also necessarily implies that life and mind 
or soul would have sprung from matter. But we have found, 
on the contrary, that life, mind or soul could not have sprung 
from matter, and that they must therefore have come from 
a source that is not material — or that they must have been 
created by a supreme Will. We have found, moreover, that 
such an origin is not inconsistent with truly scientific prin- 
ciples, but that it is rather in necessary accord with them. 
And, as this immaterial source of life and mind or soul can- 
not, therefore, have been dependent upon, or originated from, 
matter, nor from itself, it must necessarily be an eternal 
entity, which is contrary to this postulate, that matter alone 
is eternal. We have also seen that this postulate necessarily 
implies that the universe must be infinite, which, as we shall 
show in our next two chapters, is not the case, and is even a 
physical impossibility. Therefore this postulate, that matter 
alone is eternal, must fall. And the necessary conclusion has 
become apparent; namely, that matter is not only not the 
only eternal existence, but that it is no eternal existence. 

Ill POSTULATE OF ETERNAL EXISTENCE OF 
SPIRIT ALONE TENABLE AND TRUE 

We have now shown that the postulate of the eternal ex- 
istence of both matter and spirit and that of the eternal exist- 
ence of matter alone are both untenable. Of the three pos- 
sible postulates as to a first and necessarily eternal existence, 
there is therefore only one left; namely, that of the eternal 
existence of spirit alone. And we might in anticipation say 
that this is, of course, practically identical with the Christian 
conception of the eternal existence of God alone. From the 
foregoing arguments it may, however, be said that this re- 
maining postulate no. longer ren^ains a mere postulation. It 



Three Postulates 1i 

now stands out as almost a demonstrated fact, even without 
further proof. 

But there is not only this negative proof for the eternal 
existence of spirit alone. This can also practically be demon- 
strated by positive ontological and mathematico-physical argu- 
ments, as the following chapters will show. Indeed, the whole 
combined and cumulative evidence from universal nature con- 
stitutes a sublime positive proof. And, though apostate man 
should deny this one great fact, in persisting to be an orphan in 
the universe, and though he should be silent in his praises to 
the only eternal Being, it would ever remain true that all 
nature with her myriad voices would continue eloquent in 
praise to the great Creator, God. 

It might almost seem superfluous, therefore, to attempt to 
add anything on this only remaining postulate, or well-nigh 
demonstrated fact — that of the eternal existence of spirit 
alone. Only a few additional words will therefore be said 
in this connection. The following chapters may, however, 
be regarded as a development of the idea bodied forth in this 
postulate. 

This postulate alone accords with man's own mysterious 
being. The aspirations and yearnings of the human heart 
would, without it, forever have to remain unfilled and un- 
satisfied. Man's longing for life can have no other meaning 
than as an index-finger pointing to his origin and source, the 
truly living One. Design and purpose in man, of which 
he finds the correlation everywhere in nature, would be an 
anomaly, if it did not imply and plainly point to a Designer 
from Whom all design, both in man and in nature, has its 
being. Then, too, the very God-instinct, or what may be 
called the spontaneous God-consciousness, is only the created 
impress of this great fact upon his very nature. And, to the 
unbiased mind, the idea of a temporal universe, brought into 
being by an eternal Creator, is well-nigh intuitive, like the 
ideas of time, space and causation. And, together with his 
God-instinct, this may be regarded as a vestige of his crea- 
tion, left upon him by his God — a trailing cloud of glory in 
his origin. 

The belief in some supreme Being as the cause or author of 
all things is a universal one. At various times, when new 
savage tribes of man were discovered, this universality of be- 
lief in some Divinity was denied, because there was no such 



72 Creation Ex Nihilo 

belief at first apparent among them. But, upon more thorough- 
going investigation, such belief, however crude, has always 
been found. To quote an acknowledged authority on this 
point, C. P. Tiele of the University of Leiden made the 
following veiy emphatic declaration: "The statement that 
there are nations or tribes which possess no religion, rests either 
on inaccurate observation, or on a confusion of ideas. No 
tribe or nation has yet been met with destitute of belief in 
any higher beings; and travellers who asserted their exist- 
ence have been afterwards refuted by the facts. It is legiti- 
mate, therefore, to call religion in its most general sense a 
universal phenomenon of humanity" (Outlines of the His- 
tory of Religion, Tr. Carpenter, Second Edition, p. 6). So, 
also, David Livingstone and other explorers have testified to 
the universality of belief in a god or some higher being or 
beings, as a fact that cannot be denied in the face of the evi- 
dence. 

This universal belief in a supreme spiritual Being has surely 
not come by accident or development, but by man's created 
nature. Like the created instinct for food and other neces- 
sities, this God-instinct is a natural and necessary one to lead 
man to seek his Creator. Indeed, in addition to an inborn 
instinct, telling him — in language often very unintelligible be- 
cause of his fallen nature — of the one supreme and only 
eternal Entity, all nature with overwhelming evidence silently 
testifies to every man that the emotions of his heart are con- 
firmed by the manifestations of a creative mind in every part 
of the environing universe. Thus, the evidence within is 
matched by the evidence without. The human soul and the 
material universe, perceiver and perceived, are spiritual and 
material complements. And they both bear witness in this 
manifest designed relationship, as well as in their intrinsic 
natures, that they are creatures of a higher Being. And that 
Being, by His very nature, must be an independent or abso- 
lute and eternal spiritual entity. In line with this are the 
following words by Oscar Kuhns, which, although we need 
not endorse the author's full application elsewhere, are surely 
more than mere poetry: ''Every being is an epitome of all the 
rest, and in the understanding of the meanest flower that 
grows, lies the whole mystery of God and the universe. Man 
especially is a microcosm; he is placed in the middle of the 



Three Postulates 73 

universe; in his body related to animals and plants; in his 
mind related to the celestial planets; and in his soul at one 
with the angels, and capable of union with God. He is 
touched with the infinite streams of influence that flow into 
his soul from all sides; no part of the universe can be touched 
without the strings of his heart vibrating in unison. And 
above and about and mingling with all this seething mass of 
activities is God, who manifests himself in all things, from 
the smallest flower to man, — ^who is the crown of creation'* 
{The Sense of the Infinite, 1908, p. 190). 

It is a noteworthy fact that many eminent men of science 
who, in the less mature periods of their lives denied the 
existence of God and the soul, in their maturer periods came 
back to acknowledge the existence of both. In early life 
they were apparently led by the sage declarations of leaders 
who denied the need of either existence to explain nature, and 
perhaps also by a half-conviction that such an attitude might 
border on the heroic. But maturer considerations and deeper 
investigations into the wonders of nature compelled them to 
acknowledge the manifest absurdity of such a position. Thus, 
Du Bois-Reymond, Wllhelm Max Wundt, Karl Ernst von 
Baer and Rudolf VIrchow during the earlier periods of their 
lives were pronounced materialists; but they gradually rose 
to regard the soul as a supernatural entity, and a supreme 
Deity back of nature as absolutely necessary to make it in- 
telligible. 

Wundt's change of view was especially a radical one. He 
not only publicly renounced his former position, but he even 
condemned It as the sin of his youth. So also Du Bois-Reymond 
in later and maturer life came to renounce his atheistic con- 
ception of the universe and to accept a thelstic view of crea- 
tion. Thus, in an address on Neovitalism, in 1894, he ex- 
pressed himself as of the conviction that all matter was created 
ages ago by one creative act of Deity and then endowed with 
all the potentialities necessary for Its full evolution, crowned 
in the being of man. It might also be said that even Im- 
manuel Kant largely modified his prejudiced views of earlier 
life. Even the great botanist Relnke not only rejected the 
physical origin of species, but he even came to accept the ac- 
count of creation In Genesis I. in all its wonderful con- 
sistency and simplicity. Thus in these, as well as in many 



74 Creation Ex Nihilo 

other men, is beautifully illustrated the dictum of Francis 
Bacon, "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, 
but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to re- 
ligion" (Essays: Of Atheism). 

This postulate of the eternal existence of spirit alone is 
thus not only shown to be altogether tenable, but, in con- 
nection with the only other two — but untenable — postulates, 
it remains as a practically demonstrated fact. In the remain- 
ing chapters this will, however, become very much more ap- 
parent; namely, that the only eternal entity must be a spiritual 
being — the God of the Scriptures — and that the universe was 
by Him called into being ex nihilo in time or at time's begin- 
ning. We shall, therefore, close this chapter and proceed to 
our next chapter, in which we shall show that the universe 
is by nature a finite, and, therefore, a dependent or non- 
absolute and created existence. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE FINITE AND TEM- 
PORAL AND THEREFORE A CREATURE- 
EVIDENCE FROM DEPENDENCE 

At the close of our discussion of the postulate of the 
eternal existence of matter alone — in the preceding chapter — 
we stated that many men contend that the physical universe 
is infinite in extent, and therefore necessarily eternal and abso- 
lute. This is a necessary assumption in the interests of their 
contention, that the universe is uncreated and eternal, in order 
to escape the dilemma of contending for an impossibility; 
namely, that a finite can be eternal and absolute. They v^^ould 
thus also account for a supposedly endless series of successive 
evolutions and devolutions, alternating like might}^ pulse- 
beats, from nebulas to star-systems and back to nebulse again, 
and so on without end. Thus they suppose the possibility 
also of numberless planetary systems in eternal cycles. These, 
in their turns, and partly simultaneously, would supposedly be- 
come theatres of life, transmitted both successively and simul- 
taneously from system to system forever. 

Thus Ernst Haeckel holds that the ether is boundless and 
immeasurable, and in eternal motion, causing all phenomena. 
He embodies his theory of an infinite and eternal universe in 
his striking "cosmological theorems," as follows: ''(i) The 
universe, or the cosmos, is eternal, infinite, and illimitable. (2) 
Its substance, with its two attributes (matter and energy), 
fills infinite space, and is in eternal motion. (3) This mo- 
tion runs on through infinite time as an unbroken development, 
with a periodic change from life to death, from evolution to 
devolution. (4) The innumerable bodies which are scat- 
tered about the space-filling ether all obey the same 'law of 
substance'; w^hile the rotating masses slowly move towards 
their destruction and dissolution in one part of space others are 

75 



76 Creation Ex Nihilo 

springing into new life and development in other quarters of 
the universe," etc. (The Riddle of the Universe, P. 13). In 
another statement, with equal definiteness he makes energy 
eternal: "The sum-total of force or energy in the universe 
remains constant, no matter what changes take place around 
us; it is eternal and infinite, like the matter on which it is 
inseparably dependent" {Ibid., p. 231). 

Of similar import are the following words by Orlando J. 
Smith, who holds that all things, even including the human 
soul, are without beginning and without end: "i. The Uni- 
verse has in space no boundary; in time no beginning and no 
end. 2. There is no creation and no annihilation — the es- 
sential properties of all things being uncreatable and inde- 
structible. Birth and death, growth and decay, are transforma- 
tions" {Eternalism, 1902, p. 28). 

The belief that the physical universe is infinite led Friedrich 
Carl Biichner also to the natural conclusion that it must be 
eternal and uncreated, as he thus expressed it: "The Uni- 
verse of matter with its properties, conditions, or movements, 
which we name forces, must have existed from and will exist 
to all eternity, or — in other words — the Universe cannot have 
been created." And other men, from the same or similar 
premises, have come to the same conclusion; namely, that the 
physical universe must be eternal and uncaused. 

Similar statements might be quoted from the writings of 
other men of science; but, as others are found in this work 
in connection with our discussion of special points, we shall 
not further multiply citations here. Enough have, however, 
been given to show the importance of the theory of an infinite 
universe for the related theory of its eternal duration and 
self -existence. 

So necessary is the idea of an infinite universe to make the 
theory of its eternal duration workable, that the advocates of 
eternalism have to assume its infinity as a necessary postulate 
of reason. This necessity is openly acknowledged by Svante 
Arrhenius in the following words : "If the world were limited, 
as people used to fancy — that is to say, if the stars were 
crowded together in a huge heap, and only infinite, empty space 
outside of this heap, the dust particles ejected from the suns 
during the past ages by the action of the radiating pressure 
would have been lost in infinite space, just as we imagined that 



Evidence from Dependence 77 

the radiated energy of the sun was lost. If that were so, the 
development of the universe would long since have come to an 
end, to an annihilation of all matter and of all energy" 
{Worlds in the Making, p. 209). 

This, therefore, is precisely the difficulty that these men 
have to overcome; namely, that the universe is finite. And, 
even if it were infinite, would that necessarily be a proof of 
their theories — which are only theories — built upon very in- 
significant data? Surely it is a wild stretch of the imagina- 
tion, from such insufficient evidence as is available from this 
insignificant corner of the universe to determine how the im- 
measurably vast universe came to be and what will be its 
ultimate destiny. But to assume that the universe is infinite 
is to do so in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the 
contrary, as we shall now proceed to show and, as we hope, 
practically to demonstrate in this and the following chapter. 
Here we shall consider dependence as an evidence that the uni- 
verse is finite. And in our next chapter we shall consider the 
evidence for its finiteness from the universe as a cosmic 
whole. 

What evidence, then, does nature furnish that it is de- 
pendent and finite? There are limitations on every side. 
There is dependence everywhere. This limitation or inter- 
dependence may be considered as consisting of two kinds; 
namely, simultaneous or synchronous, and successive or chrono- 
logical. And, w^hile there is a sense in which both may be 
considered as causal, it is the latter that would more commonly 
be recognized as such. 

I EVIDENCE FROM APPARENTLY SIMULTANE- 
OUS OR SYNCHRONOUS DEPENDENCE, 
PROVING AN INDEPENDENT AND ABSO- 
LUTE UPHOLDER 

All things within the physical universe are mutually so in- 
terrelated that they are necessarily dependent upon one an- 
other. And this is so true that it may truthfully be said 
that not only the moving of a world, but even the lifting of 
a pebble, must, by the all-pervading law of gravitation, neces- 
sarily affect, however infinitesimally, the whole material uni- 
verse. That surely shows interdependence. Thus, each af- 



78 Creation Ex Nihilo 

fects all and all affect each. And, for the universe to be 
infinite, there would have to be an absoluteness and inde- 
pendence somewhere, either locally or in the universal ag- 
gregate. 

In illustration of this truth and fact, as a proof of the 
finiteness of nature, we shall make use of what we may call 
an indefinite series of dependences. Upon what is your chair 
dependent for support? Upon the floor. Upon what is the 
floor dependent? Upon the building. Upon what is the 
building dependent? Upon the earth. Upon what is the earth 
dependent? Upon the sun. Upon what is the sun dependent? 
Some one might answer, Upon some other sun or star, or 
perhaps rather upon the centre of gravity of a group of stellar 
bodies. Upon what then is that supposed body, or group of 
bodies, dependent? Perhaps upon some other group or groups, 
or upon their common centre of gravity, as some one might 
suggest. 

I NO SERIES OF SUPPORTS AND DEPENDENCES INFINITE 

The above series of questions and answers might be con- 
tinued indefinitely. For, however great the number in this 
series of supports might be supposed to be, we should still have 
the ever-recurring question, "And upon what does that last 
support depend for its support?" As every chain of indi- 
vidual links must necessarily be finite and must hang from 
some support not itself, or beyond it, so must this chain of 
supposed supports be finite and hang from, or depend upon, 
some ulterior independent support. And, as the universe 
is composed of an indefinite number of finites or dependents, 
whatever they be, so in the universal aggregate must it re- 
main finite and dependent or conditioned; for no number of 
conditioned and finite things can constitute an Infinite and 
unconditioned. Thus nature's finite series of mutually inter- 
dependent supports Incontrovertlbly proves it to be a limited 
or finite universe. And such a universe, by its very nature, 
cannot be eternal; nor could it have been self-originated. 

Furthermore, this process of reasoning, with its inevitable 
conclusion cannot be set aside by the contention that not any 
one thing, from electron to star, is dependent upon any other 
one thing for support, but that every single thing is, in its 



Evidence from Dependence 79 

last analysis, supported by the universal whole. 

While this is indeed scientifically true, and would, in a 
sustained argument like this, make the problem more com- 
plex and the successive steps in the reasoning less apparent, 
it by no means alters the mathematically certain conclusion. 
The dependence none the less, but rather more so, still exists, 
only in much greater complexities than in our illustration. 
Each depends upon all and all depend upon each, thus leav- 
ing all its parts mutually interdependent, and, therefore, nec- 
essarily relative and dependent in the universal vi^hole. 

Upon what, then, must the great whole of these mutually 
interdependent parts of the dependent universe depend for its 
support? Or, upon what does the last link of these supposed 
supports, and, therefore, the whole chain, depend for sup- 
port? Why not accept the only tenable postulate, that of 
an infinite, independent, absolute, eternal and almighty Will 
— that of the God of Scripture? His acknowledged existence 
alone not only makes intelligible and resolves this complex and 
perplexing problem, but it alone can fill the otherwise in- 
satiable yearnings of the human heart. 

Therefore, the material universe is shown by this line of 
argument necessarily to be dependent or conditioned and 
finite, and therefore a temporal existence. 

2 ACTION OF GRAVITATION AN EVIDENCE OF FINITENESS AND 
DEPENDENCE 

Another point in proof that the universe is finite, which 
should be considered in this connection, is based upon the 
action of gravitation. It will be remembered that the wording 
of the heading to this subdivision of the present chapter is 
Evidence from Apparently Simultaneous or Synchronous De- 
pendence. By this we foreshadowed what we shall here de- 
velop; namely, that the force of gravitation does not act in- 
stantaneously, as is rather generally supposed. As in the 
case of light, heat and electricity, to which it is undoubtedly 
akin, the element of time enters into its transmission or action. 
Laplace estimated it as acting with a velocity considerably 
greater than that of light. But more recent estimates or 
calculations place its velocity of action in the same order as 
that of the transmission of light. Thus M. Henri Poincare 



8o Creation Ex Nihilo 

makes its velocity of action about that of light. The mathe- 
matician Gerber reached the same conclusion, basing his cal- 
culation upon the motion of Mercury in perihelion. This, 
then, is additional evidence that the universe is finite in ex- 
tent. 

But not only would the action of gravitation in an in- 
finite universe have to be infinite in velocity, or instantaneous, 
but it would also have to be infinite in extent or force. But as 
this is fixed and even measurable, its basis or mass of action 
must also be finite and fixed. 

If the universe were infinite, its motions or attractions (if 
such there could be) would, moreover, have to be in perfect 
balance, by instantaneous action. Nor, as a whole at least, 
could it even be in motion, as we shall show; and therefore 
the very presence of attraction and motion, is itself an evi- 
dence that it is finite. But, as gravitation is not instantaneous, 
this, at any rate, indicates that its motions or attractions are not 
thus balanced, and that there is some universal adjustment of 
position constantly going on. And this itself is an index of 
relativity, and therefore of finiteness. Moreover, the very 
internal attractions and revolutions are local evidences of this 
great truth, that the universe is in motion everywhere, and 
hence that it therefore is necessarily a finite entity. Some- 
what in line with this is the conclusion of Seeliger, from the 
apparently invariable nature of gravitation, that the universe 
must be finite. 

The fact that a dependent or conditioned existence must 
necessarily be finite, needs no further proof in this connec- 
tion. Hence, as we have in the above argument shown the 
universe to be a dependent or conditioned and therefore 
finite existence, we hold that this is equivalent to showing that 
it must have been created, and that it must still be supported 
or sustained by an independent, absolute, infinite, eternal, and 
therefore uncreated, spiritual Being — a supreme Will. 

II EVIDENCE FROM SUCCESSIVE OR CHRONO- 
LOGICAL DEPENDENCE, NECESSITATING 
AN UNCAUSED ETERNAL ORIGINATOR 

In addition to the simultaneous dependence spoken of above, 
there is also a successive or chronological dependence. This 



Evidence from Dependence 8l 

might be spoken of as that of so-called cause and ejfectj by 
which term it will more readily be recognized. This de- 
pendence we shall now proceed to illustrate and explain. 



I THE LAW GOVERNING SECONDARY CAUSES, ILLUSTRATED 

In striking the first of a long series of balls, arranged in 
a straight line one against the other, every ball to the very 
last is set in motion. The last ball in the series receives the 
impact of the ball immediately preceding it. Its motion is 
the effect of the impact of this preceding ball, while that im- 
pact is spoken of as the cause of that motion. And, because 
there is no ball after this last ball, its motion remains an ef- 
fect without in turn becoming an apparent cause. With the 
second last ball the case is different. Its motion is the effect 
of the impact of the third last ball ; but it in turn, by its impact 
upon the last ball, becomes the apparent cause of that last 
ball's motion. So the motion of the third last ball is the 
cause of the motion of the second last ball, while it is the 
effect of the motion of the fourth last ball. The same is true 
of all the other balls back to the second from the beginning 
of the series. The motion of the first ball is thus also the 
apparent cause of the motion of the second ball in the series; 
but it is not the effect of the motion of a ball preceding it. 
Its motion comes from a source altogether different. It comes 
from the impact of the mind-directed blow with which it was 
struck. And, unless it had been moved by some external force, 
that first ball, according to the law of inertia, would have re- 
mained forever at rest. And with it, all the other balls of the 
series would also have remained at rest. There would then 
have been no motion in the whole series, either as cause or as 
effect. In other words, the motions of all the balls, whether 
viewed as causes or as effects, were caused by that mind- 
directed blow. All these motions are, therefore, really ef- 
fects of the impact of that blow; but, strictly speaking, causes 
they are not. The only real cause is the director of the blow. 
To be sure, in logic and in every-day life, we speak of them 
as causes producing succeeding motions as effects. But when 
we view them in relation to the mind-directed blow or to the 
director of that blow, they are effects only, although by com- 



82 Creation Ex Nihil o 

parison with the blow or its director as the first cause they 
may be spoken of as second or secondary causes. It is, of 
course, readily seen that these motions, considered as also 
causes of other motions, are totally different from the real 
cause, the will that directed the blow which produced them 
all. 

There is also another point that needs explanation. The 
impact of the second last ball moved the last ball, that of 
the third last ball really moved the last two balls, that of 
the fourth last ball moved the last three, etc. Or, the energy 
of the second last ball viewed as an effect may be said to be 
greater by the energy of its own simple motion than it is as a 
cause. As an effect of the impact of the preceding ball, its 
energy includes both its own motion and that of the ball that 
it moves. As a cause, its energy moves only the last ball. So, 
the energy of the third last ball as a cause is equal to the energy 
of the motion of the second last ball as given — which of course 
includes that of the last ball. Or, in other words, the energy 
of the m.otion of the third last ball viewed as a cause^, is equal 
to the energy of the second last ball viewed as an effect. But 
the energy of the third last ball viewed as an effect is equal to 
the energy of the second last ball viewed as an effect plus that 
of its own simple motion. Or, the energy of any ball as an 
effect is greater by its own simple motion than it is as a cause — 
no more and no less. The energy, therefore, grows less in 
an arithmetical ratio, as we move from the initial impact to- 
ward the last ball of the series. Conversely, as we pass from 
the last ball toward the initial impact the energy correspond- 
ingly increases. The energy of the first ball is, of course, 
exactly equal to the energy of all the balls in the series plus 
the energy of its own simple motion. And this is the energy 
as an effect that came from the impact of the blow as a cause. 
Nor has any ball any energy apart from this impact. But how 
much more energy the one had who directed the blow, and 
which he might have imparted through a blow to this series 
of balls or to any number or other kinds of series, is hard 
to tell. In other words, the measure of the energy imparted 
to this series of balls is not at all likely the measure of the 
energy of which the striker was capable or which he possessed. 
This illustration may seem rather long, but it is so in the 
interests of clearness. 



Evidence from Dependence 83 

2 ALL SERIES OF SECONDARY CAUSES FINITE, LEADING UP 
TO AN INFINITE FIRST CAUSE 

If we could thus analyze events, or so-called effects, in 
nature and inerrently trace them to their immediate causes 
in all their complexities, and then likewise trace the so- 
called causes to their complex causes, etc., etc., we should at 
last arrive at a so-called cause or complexity of causes that 
was not produced in a similar way. It would be the first 
of the Indefinite series of so-called causes, which itself is 
caused by an only real, because uncaused, cause, properly called 
the First Cause. This series of successive causes must be 
finite, because no number of them could constitute an in- 
finite even as we could have no Infinite number in a row of 
balls. This last point will become more clear In connection 
with an argument near the end of our next chapter. 

That First Cause, arrived at by the above argument, is 
really the only cause that, in a sense, fully matches the fol- 
lowing definition of cause by John Stuart Mill. In treating 
of causation in connection with sequence in his great work 
on Logic, he says, "We may define, therefore, the cause of 
a phenomenon, to be the antecedent or the concurrence of 
antecedents, on which it is Invariably and unconditionally conse- 
quent" {A System of Logic, Eighth Edition, 1888, p. 245). 

Of no secondary cause can it be truly said that it is that upon 
which a phenomenon or an effect invariably and uncondition- 
ally is consequent or depends. No secondary cause is a pure 
cause, itself being conditioned by preceding and concurring 
causes. Nor is there, therefore, any unconditional connection 
between such cause and its associated consequent. But of the 
great First Cause, as indicated above, as a pure and uncondi- 
tioned cause, and one on which events are therefore uncondi- 
tionally consequent, this definition of cause by Mill is strictly 
true. 

The whole series of successive secondary causes would thus 
be found to flow out of the one First Cause, and all the 
energy, both in the individuals and in the grand aggregate, 
of the succession, would be found to have been imparted to it 
by that First Cause — as shown in our illustration. And, of 
course, it should be remembered that each successive complex 
cause as we go backward in the series is greater as an effect^ 



84 Creation Ex Nihilo 

by its own simple energy, than it is as a cause. So each cause, 
as we go backwards, as a cause contains all the energy of all 
the succeeding effects (or causes) to the very end of the series. 
What inconceivable energy must there have been then in the 
first of these ever more and more complex secondary causes! 
But, as the energy of the first in the series — that of the whole 
series — is not the measure of the possible energy of the great 
First Cause, how infinitely great must that power be which 
that First Cause, or the infinite God, possesses — for the power 
of an absolute Being must necessarily be infinite! 

3 THE EXISTENCE OF ONE ABSOLUTE FIRST CAUSE A NECES- 
SARY POSTULATE OF REASON 

That there must be a First Cause back of all secondary 
causes is so necessary even to the very constitution of the 
human mind, that most really great thinkers are driven to 
that Cause as the only possible ultimate explanation of the 
fleeting phenomena that we call the universe. Although the 
great philosopher Immanuel Kant (i 724-1 804) endeavored, 
by the most subtle reasoning of which even he was capable, 
to show that a positive proof of a necessary Being was im- 
possible, he was nevertheless driven by an inexorable logic to 
acknowledge the necessary existence of a supreme or ultimate 
causality in which alone the mind can rest. He reasoned 
thus: "We see things around us change, arise, and pass 
away; they, or their condition, must therefore have a cause. 
The same demand must again be made of the cause itself — as 
a datum of experience. Now it is natural that we should 
place the highest causality just where we place supreme causal- 
ity, in that being which contains the conditions of all possible 
effects, and the conception of which is so simple as that of an 
all-embracing reality. This highest cause, then, we regard as 
absolutely necessary, because we find it absolutely necessary to 
rise to it, and do not discover any reason for proceeding be- 
yond it" {Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by J. M. D. 
Meiklejohn, 1902, p. 442). 

This acknowledgment of some necessarily unconditioned or 
absolute existence — the ultimate Cause of all things — the great 
Koenigsburg philosopher finds it necessary to make as the 
logical result of the acknowledgment of any existence whatsp- 



Evidence from Dependence 85 

ever, as expressed In the following words: "If we admit the 
existence of some one thing, whatever it may be, we must also 
admit that there is something which exists necessarily. For 
what is contingent exists only under the condition of some 
other thing, which is its cause; and from this we must go on 
to conclude the existence of a cause, which is not contingent 
and which consequently exists necessarily and unconditionally. 
Such is the argument by which reason justifies its advance to- 
ward a primal being" {Ibid., pp. 438-9). 

Even Herbert Spencer was driven, by the very necessity of 
reason, from conditioned to unconditioned existence, which is 
equivalent to saying, from caused or secondary causes to an 
uncaused or First Cause — to which matter or the physical uni- 
verse is, of course, related as an effect. Though that First 
Cause, according to his philosophy, is unknowable and even 
inconceivable, such a conclusion, on the part of so great an ex- 
ponent of the agnostic philosophy, has no little weight. The 
following confession was made by Spencer: "As on conceiv- 
ing any bounded space, there arises a nascent consciousness of 
space outside the bounds; so, when we think of any definite 
cause, there arises a nascent consciousness of a cause behind 
it; and in the one case as in the other this nascent conscious- 
ness is in substance like that which suggests it, though with- 
out form. The momentum of thought carries us beyond con- 
ditioned existence to unconditioned existence; and this ever 
persists in us as the body of a thought to which we can give 
no shape" {First Principles, Sixth Edition, 1900, p. 79). 

And, of course, the same inexorable logic that drives us 
to a First Cause compels us also to acknowledge that that 
First Cause must necessarily be infinite, absolute and eternal, 
as we have shown. Therefore, Herbert Spencer was forced 
also to acknowledge these truths. 

These conclusions Spencer reached by a perfectly logical 
process; and if he had continued to rely upon his own reason- 
ing on this point, he would have been saved from some 
dilemmas and inconsistencies to which he was led. But he 
was apparently led astray by Dean MansePs faulty reason- 
ing as to First Cause, the Infinite and the Absolute, as set 
forth in that author's Limits of Reliffious Thought. 

One of these inconsistencies to which Spencer was led by 
following Dean Mansel, is, that of contending that the In- 



86 Creation Ex Nihilo 

finite and Absolute, the complete and perfect, is totally un- 
knowable. This contradiction was readily recognized by the 
keen analytic mind of James Martlneau, who was moved 
to make the following comment: "We are told in one breath 
that this Being must be in every sense 'perfect, complete, total 
— including in itself all power, and transcending all law'; 
and in another that this perfect omnipotent One is totally in- 
capable of revealing any one of an infinite store of attributes. 
Need we point out the contradictions which this position in- 
volves? If you abide by it, you deny the Absolute and Infinite 
in the very act of affirming it; for, in debarring the First 
Cause from self-revelation, you impose a limit on its nature. 
And in the very act of declaring the First Cause incognizable, 
you do not permit it to remain unknown" (Essays Philosophical 
and Theological J 190-1). 

The fallacy of Spencer lies in the various contents of the 
words knowable and unknowable. We may know with abso- 
lute certainty that a thing exists, but such knowledge does not 
necessarily imply that we know all about the thing itself. 
Indeed, we may know practically nothing about the thing. 
Thus we may know with certainty that a light is shining this 
moment of the night out there on yonder horizon. But, 
whether that light be that of a lamp, an electric light, a will- 
o'-the-wisp, or even a star, I might not be able to determine 
before It disappears. And, even if I could find it definitely to 
be one or other of these, I might still have but a limited 
knowledge of It. I may thus be very certain that I see a 
light, but may know only very little of Its real nature. There- 
fore, In one sense that light Is knowable, and even known; In 
another sense It Is unknowable. So In speaking of the Abso- 
lute and Eternal — the Creator and Upholder of all — no fact 
can be more certain than that He exists, as all nature ever 
testifies In myriad forms. And yet, we may be able by search- 
ing to find out very little of His real nature and Being. In 
the former sense He Is certainly knowable; In the latter sense 
He may as truly be spoken of as unknowable, and In that par- 
tial sense at least as the Unknowable or the unknowable One. 
It seems passing strange that some great thinkers have thus 
lost themselves In the bewildering mazes of their own ratiocina- 
tions! But they had a preconceived theory to establish In most 
cases, and therefore allowed their biased views to lead them 



Evidence from Dependence 87 

to conclusions which they often inadvertently contradicted 
elsewhere in their writings. 

We have thus shown, from the very nature of causality, 
from the existence of secondary causes, or the very existence 
of physical phenomena, that there must be a First Cause. 
We have seen that this necessary existence of a First Cause has 
its counterpart in the very constitution of the human mind, 
as a necessary postulate of reason. We have also seen that 
the existence of such a First Cause is acknowledged by many 
of the world's greatest thinkers, often apparently in the face 
of what might appear to be their own preconceptions. And 
we have shown that that First Cause must necessarily be 
infinite, while the series of secondary causes must of equal 
necessity be finite. We shall now further contemplate that 
First Cause in the light of secondary causes and in the light 
of what we have already said. And such contemplation, from 
whatever angle we view that Cause, will not only still further 
strengthen and confirm conviction as to the reality of His 
existence and His relation to the universe, but it will also help 
to a better and more concrete conception of His Greatness. 

ni SOME IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY DE- 
DUCTIONS AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE 

The known universe is, indeed, incalculably vast. But 
let us for the moment suppose it to be but a tiny island 
in the mightier archipelago of the great ocean of im- 
mensity. Our galactic system with the rotations and com- 
plex revolutions of its stars and other bodies — the universe 
known to man — might then, in comparison with such an im- 
measurably greater whole, be like an infinitesimal molecule 
with its atoms and electrons, in ceaseless gyrations; as, in- 
deed, according to our latest science, every molecule is a 
miniature or infinitesimal universe. The ultimate point of 
minute visibility to the human eye might perhaps be but a 
vanishing point from the upper cosmic universe to the nether 
infinitesimal universe. Thus, like the dividing point of the 
upper and lower halves of an hour glass, that ultimate point 
of human vision might then be considered the dividing point 
between the well-nigh infinite and the so-called infinitesimal 



88 Creation Ex Nihilo 

universes, which would constitute the two halves of the great 
unified whole. And the latter might perhaps relatively be 
as great and wonderful in its complexities down to its minutest 
divisibility as the former would be up to its ultimate unity. 
But, even if that were so, if we should trace our series of 
complex secondary causes, from the revolving electron (or 
perhaps even minuter ultimate unit) up through the cosmic 
whole of such a supposed immeasurably higher all-compre- 
hensive universe, we should nevertheless come to the point 
where the First Cause began to operate upon the first of the 
secondary causes and through it upon all to the end of time. 
And, at every step, all the more exalted would our concep- 
tion of that Being become. His almightiness would then ap- 
pear to the searcher only as greater almightiness; His great- 
ness and ways as past finding out! But, however far we 
should ascend upwards in space or go backwards in time, we 
should never get away from this Cause of all. We should 
rather approach ever nearer, perhaps almost unto the very 
presence of this eternal Cause. 



I THE ABSOLUTE, PARTIALLY KNOWABLE, FIRST CAUSE ONE, 
CONTINUALLY SUSTAINING ALL THINGS 

The further back we should trace secondary causes toward 
the First or True Cause, as already intimated, the more energy 
should we meet and the mightier should such secondary causes 
be found to be. And, again we emphasize, as the number 
of such regressions must be finite, we should at last have to 
come to the infinite First or uncaused Cause. Moreover, 
such a Cause, instead of being contrary to the idea of a true 
cause, would be the only Cause that could match that idea. 
But, as a cause can be known to us partly indirectly by its 
effects and partly directly as itself an effect, and therefore 
only partially by its effects alone, it follows that, at least in 
our present state, we should never be able fully to know an 
uncaused cause, because it would in no sense also be an ef- 
fect. Therefore, while man exists in a caused and causing 
order of nature, he can never ascend to, or directly and fully 
know, the infinite personal First Cause, God. "Canst thou 
by searching find out God ? Canst thou find out the Almighty 
unto perfection?" (Job 11:7.) The "I Am That I Am" 



Evidence from Dependence 89 

can really be known by Revelation alone, and In so far only 
as He enters into voluntary relation with us — especially in 
the history of redemption — although He may faintly be traced 
by His unmistakable footprints upon created nature. 

Thus, every present single event in nature may be con- 
sidered as the last in an intricate indefinite chronological 
sequence of events connected up together, as causes and ef- 
fects, with the Great First Cause of them all. And all simul- 
taneous events may be spoken of as the last in an indefinite 
number of such sequences, synchronously parallel and con- 
nected up together with the same Great First Cause of all 
the sequences. And, thus, that First Cause not only originated 
universal nature, but also continues to sustain it; and with the 
withholding of that sustaining power it would necessarily 
instantaneously cease to be. That Cause must, therefore, be 
the ultimate reality of all philosophic search, and the creative 
and sustaining Deity of Revelation. 

If one were to reject this profound truth as to the neces- 
sarily eternal and absolute one First Cause, he would find 
himself in an utterly inextricable dilemma of reason. He 
would either have to assume an impossible infinite chain, or 
series of infinite chains, of such successive and synchronous 
integral causes, or he would find his chain, or series of chains, 
of causes end in some equally impossible nothingness. This 
reasoning shows the very palpable absurdity of any endeavor 
to account for the universe by any cause short of a creative 
non-material Deity. 

Moreover, the unity and uniformity of nature, amidst the 
universality and variety of law, are an Incontrovertible evi- 
dence also that the inevitable logic of reason as to the im- 
possibility of more than one First Cause is unassailably con- 
firmed by nature. It was a favorite theory of Faraday that 
the various forces of nature have one common origin, and that 
they are mutually dependent, so that gravitation, electricity, 
magnetism, radiant heat and chemical force might be con- 
sidered as only different manifestations of one great funda- 
mental power. And it is needless to say that this bold theory 
of the philosophic mind of Faraday the scientist is more and 
more assuming the nature of an established scientific fact. 

As already noted, by the law of gravitation the universal 



go Creation Ex Nihil o 

whole and all its synchronous events are bound together into 
unity. They are traceable, as has been said above, through 
long series of sequential secondary causes to one great Cause of 
all, in Whom all things are thus bound together. Whether the 
number of parallel secondary causes thus diminishes, as we 
approach the First Cause, until they end In unity, directly 
acted upon by that Cause, or whether that Cause simultane- 
ously at the first acted upon an indefinite number of such 
secondary causes for the conducting of all the operations of 
nature for all time, matters not. So, it matters not for our 
immediate purpose whether the First Cause thus at first im- 
parted to matter, after He had created it, all the energy for 
all its operations to the end of time, as implied in the law 
of conservation, or whether He Imparted only the initial 
energy requisite for the beginnings of nature and then super- 
added more energy at special epochs from time to time, or 
whether He even imposed upon the universe itself the poten- 
tialities for the development of more and more energy, as 
needed. All are indeed possible. One thing must, however, 
inevitably be accepted as demonstrated; namely, that all phys- 
ical operations are ultimately from and by the one true Cause, 
the omnific Will of some supreme Creator and Upholder of 
all things. 



2 WHATEVER THE THEORY OF CREATION, ITS CAUSE A SU- 
PREME PERSONALITY 

From the above argument it is seen that, whatever theory 
one may adopt as to the creation of the universe, whether it 
be that of mediate or that of immediate creation, or that of 
these two combined — directly, or indirectly through secondary 
causes; by an instantaneous, a periodic or an evolutionary 
process, — he must necessarily postulate a Personality back of 
it to make his theory Intelligible. And, with this truth the 
truly unbiased physical scientist is even compelled to agree. 
And among those heartily so agreeing we find no less an 
authority than the English naturalist St. George Mlvart, as 
he often expressed himself in his various writings, especially 
in his Genesis of Species. 

Thus many of the greatest students of nature, whatever 



Evidence from Dependence 91 

may be their religious, or even anti-religious, prepossessions, 
find it necessary to admit that back of all material things there 
is an ultimate immaterial Cause, or that the physical universe, 
with, all its energy and potentialities, is the created product 
of a supreme spiritual Personality. 

Various attempts have also been made by purely philo- 
sophico-scientific explanations to set forth the probable nature 
of such a supreme spiritual Personality and that of the spirit- 
ual vi^orld and its connection with the physical w^orld. Thus, 
Frederic Meyers considers the Spiritual universe as in actual 
relation w^ith, and as being the source of all the energy in, the 
physical universe. Many very striking passages bearing upon 
this point might be cited from the very suggestive, even if very 
speculative, vuork, entitled The Unseen Universe, by Stev^art 
and Tait, among the most eminent British physicists of the 
latter half of the last century. But all these merely specula- 
tive theories are only gropings after, or guesses at, a real ob- 
jective truth, w^ithout the attainment of which the human 
mind and heart must forever wander about unsatisfied, — even 
that truth or those truths which the Christian holds are defi- 
nitely set forth in Revelation alone. And yet these gropings 
or guesses are themselves indirect evidences of the existence 
and reality of these truths. 

Somewhat similar in its nature to the above theories is a 
statement by Frank Harris in his ingenious mathematical 
work on Gravitation, as follows: "As a matter of fact, we 
find ourselves in a three-dimensional 'corner' of the infinite 
universe; and, as above pointed out, are therefore as machines 
incapable of motion in the fourth or any higher dimension 
relatively to our immediate surroundings: although we, and 
the whole of our three-dimensional universe, are moving in 
the fourth dimension; and it is from the energy of this four- 
dimensional great velocity that all energy now existing in our 
universe, was ultimately drawn. Thus, being incapable of 
relative movement in the fourth dimension, we cannot per- 
ceive it" {Gravitation, p. go). Statements like the above 
quotation indicate, of course, a groping after an adequate ex- 
planation for the source of the energy of the universe. And, 
although rather fanciful, they are an evidence for the in- 
adequacy of human reason fully to trace out God in His 
handiwork. 



92 Creation Ex Nihilo 

3 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION'S AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF 
ALL THINGS 

It is seen that the First Cause has been and still is the only 
real cause. That Cause is still operating through every sec- 
ondary cause, as we have said. Nor is there any power or 
force in nature that is not from and by that Cause. Every cos- 
mic world moves majestically with incredible velocity and in- 
conceivable energy by His power alone. Every vibration, 
whether underlying the phenomena of heat, light, magnetism, 
electricity or gravitation, is a vibration by His energy. Every 
blossom at our feet and every human soul is radiant with 
beauty by His power. His power throbs like mighty pulsations 
in the intrinsic motions of every atom and beneath every liv- 
ing organism throughout all nature, as well as in the revolu- 
tions, individual and united, of all worlds. Truly beautiful 
and beautifully true are the following words by one of our 
poetesses : 

"God of the Granite and the Rose! 

Soul of the Sparrow and the Bee! 
The mighty tide of Being flows 

Through countless channels, Lord, from Thee. 
It leaps to life in grass and flower, 

Through every grade of being runs, 
While from Creation's radiant towers 

Its glory flames in Stars and Suns." 

Even His initial creative act did not cease to operate at 
that great beginning, as plainly shown; but it has continued 
ever since, and shall do so till He withholds His sustaining 
power. And this is just as true whether this divine opera- 
tion be regarded as special providential acts or as acts pro- 
vided for in His creative and sustaining media in the form 
of secondary causes. Indeed, as with the Eternal there can 
not be a past nor a future — no behind and no before — to Him 
that creative act was not an act in time. Viewed from eternity 
it was an eternal act, while viewed from these shores of 
time we may speak of it as having been exercised at the be- 
ginning, that is, the beginning of our time, and as ending in 
the completed cosmos — and then almost certainly in annihila- 



Evidence from Dependence 93 

tion by its withdrawal, thus marking the end of time. We 
cannot speak of time in the relative sense before creation, nor 
after it will have ceased to be. Nor can we therefore speak 
of a creation as late or early in the thought of God. We 
cannot separate thought or purpose from act in an eternal 
Being, to whom there are no time relations. Thus, all crea- 
tion, in all its operations, is the present act of the eternal 
God. 

How wonderfully secondary causes have been, and are, 
linked together in preparation for the future of the universe, 
may be seen in energy stored up ages ago for the use of 
man. Thus the sun's energy stored up in the beds of coal, 
like electricity in a battery, now drives the spindles and 
wheels of industry. Indeed, by searching we might thus 
trace all our available energy back through indefinite ages to 
the sun, and thence perhaps still further back into the sup- 
posed aeons of the provident, developing cosmos. But this, 
if we could follow upwards and backwards far enough, would 
lead us also to the Source of all energy, the great Energizex of 
all. And nowhere throughout our search should we come upon 
any self-created energy any more than we should come upon 
any self-created atom of matter. 



IV SEVERAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 

Before closing this chapter it is in place to answer several 
supposed objections to points involved in our general argu- 
ment. 

I Because of its connection with the point last discussed 
above, we shall first consider the objection based upon the ap- 
parent difficulty involved in the relation of an absolute or 
infinite Creator to such a dependent and finite creation. The 
relation of Creator to creature. Sir William Hamilton and 
some others have held, would limit the Creator. The act of 
creation on the part of a Creator, it is contended, would 
necessitate or indicate a change in His Being. Therefore, 
such an act as is involved in the doctrine of creation ex nihiloj 
is declared to be impossible from the very nature of Deity, un- 
less perchance He created from His own substance. Hence, 
in the philosophy of these men, creation could mean no more 



94 Creation Ex Nihilo 

than an emanation ; and the created product would therefore, in 
a sense, be a part of God. 

Thus Sir William Hamilton makes the following state- 
ment on this point: "Let us suppose the very crisis of crea- 
tion. Can we realize it to ourselves, in thought, that, the 
moment after the universe came into manifested being, there 
was a larger complement of existence in the universe and its 
Author together, than there was, the moment before, in the 
Deity himself alone? This we cannot imagine. What I have 
now said of our conceptions of creation, holds true of our 
conceptions of annihilation. We can conceive no real an- 
nihilation — no absolute sinking of something into nothing. 
. . . All that there is now actually of existence in the uni- 
verse, we conceive as having virtually existed, prior to crea- 
tion, in the Creator; and in imagining the universe to be an- 
nihilated by its Author, we can only imagine this, as the 
retractation of an outward energy into power. All this shows 
how impossible it is for the human mind to think aught that 
it thinks, as non-existent either in time past or in time fu- 
ture" {Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, 1859, Vol. II., 
p. 406). And, in another connection, the same philosopher 
expresses himself thus: "The sum of being (actual and po- 
tential) now extant in the mental and material worlds, to- 
gether with that in their Creator, and the sum of being (actual 
and potential) in the Creator alone, before and after these 
worlds existed, is necessarily thought as precisely the same" 
{Ibid., p. 539). This supposed limitation of an absolute 
Creator is epigrammatically expressed in the following words 
of Dean Mansel: "A Cause cannot, as such, be absolute: 
the Absolute cannot, as such, be a cause" {Limits of Religious 
Thought, American Edition, i860, p. 77). 

The error in this reasoning is traceable to an erroneous 
notion of causation and of the Absolute, into an extended dis- 
cussion of which it is not our province here to enter. A brief 
statement to point out its fallacy will, however, surely be in 
place. 

Briefly stated, mere relation of a finite to an infinite can- 
not limit the infinite, unless it were a necessary relation. 
Finiteness in the extension of matter cannot limit the infinite 
Cause to whom extension cannot be ascribed. The infinite 
Creator's finite act in creation cannot limit His infinity in 



Evidence from Dependence 95 

power, etc., and can therefore not involve any essential or 
inward change in Him. As the act was not a necessary act, 
but a voluntary one, and as it was, viewed from eternity, an 
eternal act, which is not separable from the thought of the 
eternal Actor or Creator, it can in no sense be viewed as a 
change in His eternal, changeless Being. Indeed, by the very 
limitations of our minds and of human speech we even can- 
not here reason without involving other difficulties on this 
transcendent subject as related to the unconditioned Creator 
— a fact already spoken of. 

Moreover, the Ytry conception of such a relation of the 
infinite Creator to His creation, like that of these men, im- 
plies a limitation of His almightiness. And such would in 
so far also necessarily make of the infinite Creator a finite 
Being. And, of course, to speak of an infinite as in any 
sense limited or finite is a palpable absurdity. Surely, a Deity 
that could not create worlds, or anything else He chose to 
create, absolutely or without the use of previously existing 
materials or even His own substance, could not be conceived 
of as omnipotent. The reasoning of these men would make 
of the Creator a Being with imposed limitations, such as we 
find in ourselves. But, by what or whom imposed? No, the 
Creator, by the very nature of His infinite and eternal Being, 
would necessarily have to be unlimited in His power of crea- 
tion and in any relation whatsoever toward such creation. 
He would also be free to create or not to create, to annihilate 
or not to annihilate. Nor would His Being or power be in 
any way limited in or by such creation. He would be neither 
more nor less before, during or after creation, than He is in 
His changeless and eternal Being alone or apart from any 
such creation or such consideration. His absoluteness, and 
hence His absolutely free will, necessitates this conclusion. 

The question as to whether such a creation as a purely 
voluntary act of a Deity — a creation to which He sustains no 
necessary relation — can be understood or even conceived by 
us, is a very different matter. Such a conception would nat- 
urally be beyond our own thus necessary limitations, and 
therefore beyond the reach of human consciousness. But that 
would not place it above our reach as a conclusion or deduc- 
tion of reason, nor would it, of course, in the least alter 
or affect the reality. And if Hamilton, and others who have 



96 Creation Ex Nihtlo 

held to views like his, had thus confined their reasoning to the 
possibility or impossibility of the mind to conceive such crea- 
tion and such relation of Creator to creature, their conclu- 
sions might be accepted in a general way upon their face value. 
But, in applying their reasoning to the reality itself and 
drawing conclusions as to that reality, in virtually identify- 
ing the limited conceptions of the human mind with external 
reality, or in measuring infinite reality by man's finite ca- 
pacity to grasp reality — which capacity is necessarily limited 
to the finite and can therefore not grasp the infinite — these 
thinkers have inadvertently been led to limit the omnipotent, 
infinite and eternal God. The invalidity of their reasoning, and 
the consequent inconclusiveness of their conclusions will there- 
fore be self-evident. Hence, this objection as to a limitation 
in the Creator, both as to substance and as to time, has no 
weight whatever, and may therefore be passed over without 
further argument at this time. 

2 Another objection to the necessary existence of a great 
First Cause as the Creator of all things is this; namely, that 
sufficient time joined with infinite space might constitute a 
sufficient background for the development of all things. This, 
certainly, it would seem, should require no answer, as it is too 
superficial to bear investigation. It surely should be suf- 
ficient to say that no amount of time can of itself produce 
either previously non-existing energy or non-existing matter. 
Time and space are expressions of relations, in which secondary 
causes operate, the one in succession and the other in exten- 
sion; or both in succession, the one chronologically and the 
other synchronously. But they cannot be or become even 
secondary causes. They may barely be spoken of as condi- 
tions. 

Because of the many erroneous conceptions of time, a word 
of further explanation is necessary in this connection. Time, 
as we know it, or time relative, is that wherein which some- 
thing that has, or consists of, a succession of changes, exists, 
and to which it is related. We know it only by its successions 
and not by itself. It may be called the measure of the dura- 
tion of that which has a beginning and an ending. Such an 
existence must necessarily be finite, as an infinite cannot change 
nor have such beginning and end. The changing universe is 
such an existence, and this is that wherein it exists — or to 



Evidence from Dependence 97 

which it is related in its changes — as the measure of its exist- 
ence and of its changes. Hence, the changing universe must 
be finite. From this it is readily seen also that eternity, or 
time absolute, is that wherein that exists which has no suc- 
cession of changes, no beginning nor end in duration, and, 
of course, with reference to that which has no beginning and 
no end in extension. Thus, eternity is that wherein an 
eternal and infinite has its existence. Such an existence must, 
therefore, be changeless and absolute; and that changeless, in- 
finite, absolute and eternal entity is what the Christian knows 
as God, the Creator of the universe. 

3 And, as to so-called chance, that is only a word behind 
which to hide one's ignorance. For, if we could understand 
what men call chance we should find back of it all unmis- 
takable secondary causes, as really as behind any event whose 

.causes are manifest. But more of this later (Chapter VIII). 

4 And, as to law, it should be said that law is only the 
method of operations in nature, or the expression of these 
methods; but a cause of these operations it is not. This dis- 
tinction between law and cause could be shown by many illus- 
trations, both in the operations of nature and in the actions 
of man. But, surely, it is so self-evident as to need no further 
explanation in this connection (see Division V of Chapter 
VIII). 

5 It has been contended, moreover, that only material 
causes can act upon matter, and that thought can neither affect 
matter nor direct energy. But this is in direct conflict with 
the better knowledge and experience of even the objector. 
He well knows that thought in his own life precedes and 
determines action. Indeed, as already noted, nothing but 
will can constitute a real cause, all so-called material causes 
being the media or secondary causes through which will oper- 
ates. Thus, when I strike a ball with a hammer the ball is 
moved. The real cause of which the ball's motion is the 
effect is not the hammer, however, nor its blow, nor even 
my hand or my arm that wields the hammer. It is my mind 
that directs my arm and hand to wield the hammer so as to 
impart energy to the ball, resulting in its motion. The arm 
and hammer are simply the media or secondary causes through 
which my will operates to move the ball. Therefore, we do 
not ascribe to these secondary causes any morality in the act, 



98 Creation Ex Nihil o 

for that can be ascribed to the directing will alone. If it was 
right for the ball to be moved, it is the will that is commended. 
If it was wrong, it is the will that is blamed. But these 
secondary causes can neither be blamed nor commended for 
the act. My will In this case may, therefore, be regarded as 
the first cause of which the arm, hand and hammer are the 
secondary causes. These are only the Instruments of my willj 
which Is the agent and, therefore, totally different. 

So in the whole mighty universe it Is JVill that is back of 
all secondary causes, and these secondary causes are the media 
or Instruments or methods of operation, or the expressions of 
that Will, Thus the First Cause must be a living, and free, 
Personality, and, therefore, altogether different from the sec- 
ondary causes which are His instruments of operation for the 
conduct of His mighty works. 

With this ultimate or first, and only real, Cause of the 
origin and continuance of the existing universe — this absolute, 
free personal JVill — science as such has In reality nothing to 
do. This Is beyond Its legitimate sphere; for science has to do 
only with the universe as existing^ and therefore with the laws 
or modes of its existence, a fact of which we shall speak more 
fully later (Chapter X). This is even acknowledged by 
eminent scientists. On this point the learned Dr. William 
B. Carpenter, who could surely speak with authority, in sev- 
eral connections expressed himself in no uncertain terms. He 
called attention to the Importance of science confining itself 
to Its own distinctive sphere, and not presuming to enter the 
domain of theology by setting up nature's laws as self-acting, 
and as either excluding or rendering unnecessary the Power 
which alone can give them effect. Some other men of science 
have come to the same definite conviction. However, as this 
matter will be discussed In our closing chapter we shall not 
further discuss this point in this connection. 

Therefore, let no one say, In the light of all the evidence 
from nature for God's existence, that He does not exist; for 
He is the only real existence, as He is the only real Cause. 
No secondary cause without Him; no other existence except 
from Him! To remove Him, the only Cause, would be to 
remove all cause, all energy, all existence. Electrons and 
atoms would cease to move and combine; all vibrations would 
stop; light, heat, electricity, gravitation, would no longer oper- 



Evidence from Dependence 99 

ate; stars would instantly cease to revolve and shine. And, in- 
deed, in the very moment when God's power would be with- 
drawn all energy would cease and the elemental matter of the 
universe would vanish into nothingness, as we shall show it 
will vanish. Thus, as by the power of God all matter was cre- 
ated ex nihiloj and then endowed with the requisite energy for 
a universal cosmos, so by the removal of that power all would 
again be resolved or dissolved in nihilum. 

We have thus showed, from its inherent dependence, both 
simultaneous and synchronous, that the physical universe is 
necessarily finite and therefore temporal, and that it must there- 
fore be a creation. But there is further additional evidence in 
nature, and to many minds, we believe, even more convincing 
and conclusive, that it must have been created by an absolute 
and eternal Being. In our next chapter we shall consider the 
matter of the extent of the universe from another point of 
view and show that, when considered as a cosmic whole, the 
evidence is no less convincing, but rather more, if that were 
possible, than when considered from dependence, that it must 
necessarily be a finite entity and therefore a creature. 



CHAPTER V 

THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE FINITE AND TEM- 
PORAL, AND THEREFORE A CREATURE- 
EVIDENCE FROM NATURE AS A COSMIC 
WHOLE 

In our last chapter we showed from its inherent depend- 
ence in every part, from ultimate particle to flaming star, that 
the physical universe must necessarily be a finite entity, and 
that therefore it must have been created. We shall now pro- 
ceed to consider the universe as a cosmic whole, to see what 
further testimony it affords as to its extent. 

We are, of course, here especially confronted with the phil- 
osophic objection, that this whole matter of a universe as be- 
ginning or as not beginning in space, as well as in time, is to- 
tally inconceivable. The implication of this objection is, that 
the very transcendental nature of this idea precludes the possi- 
bility of arriving at any definite conclusion on this point. We 
give the substance of this philosophic objection in the words of 
Sir William Hamilton, as follows: "Existence we cannot but 
think, — cannot but attribute in thought; nevertheless we can 
actually conceive neither of these contradictory alternatives, — 
the absolute commencement, the infinite non-commencement, of 
being. As it is with Existence, so is it with Time. We cannot 
think time beginning; we cannot think time not beginning. So 
also with Space. We are unable to conceive an existence out 
of space; yet we are equally unable to compass the notion of 
illimitable or infinite space. Our capacity of thought is thus 
peremptorily proved incompetent to what we necessarily think 
about; for, whilst what we think about must be thought to 
Exist, — to exist in Time, — to exist in Space, — we are unable 
to realize the counter-notion of Existence commencing or not 
commencing, whether in Time or in Space" {Lectures on 
Metaphysics and Logic, 1859, Vol. II., p. 525). 

joo 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole lOl 

It is indeed true, as Hamilton contended, that the human 
mind is incapable of conceiving of space and time either as 
beginning or as not beginning, or of the universe either as lim- 
ited — as having a beginning and as having an end — or as un- 
limited. But this would not in the least invalidate our argu- 
ment. It is not a question as to whether the mind can con- 
ceive of such finiteness or infinity; but it is a question of fact. 
As the universe does not have its existence within the mind 
of man, its inconceivability by the mind either as finite or as 
infinite would in no way affect the reality. The limitation of 
conception, of course, exists in the mindj which is by nature 
limited. 

Moreover, even if the universe could actually be conceived 
as infinite, but could not be conceived as finite, this could not 
alter our conclusions, as the limitation would exist alone in 
the ability of the mind to conceive. It is therefore not a ques- 
tion as to whether the universe can be conceived of as finite, 
but as to whether finiteness is testified to by the universe itself. 
And the contention of Kant that the universe can be proved 
both finite and infinite, both as to space and as to time, we 
leave to the reader's judgment, in the light of the evidence 
presented in this chapter. However, it is interesting to find 
that some of the greatest thinkers have actually come to the 
conviction that the physical universe is finite. 

I GREAT THINKERS ON THE EXTENT OF THE 
UNIVERSE 

Wh'ile it is true that the mere opinion of great thinkers, that 
the universe is finite, does by no means prove it to be so, yet, 
as their opinion is based upon careful considerations of an ac- 
cumulation of data, it should have some weight. And, as the 
tendency among many men of science (Haeckel, Arrhenius, 
etc.) is more and more to regard the universe as infinite and 
eternal, the testimony of some of the greatest masters among 
them should have no little v/eight with those open to con- 
viction. And this should appear all the more convincing when 
it is seen that the evidence of nature unmistakably corrob- 
orates their testimony, as we hope to show. 

Among those eminent men of science who came to the 
definite conviction, from the evidence from the universe itself, 



102 Creation Ex Nihilo 

that it is finite in extent, was America's greatest astronomer, 
Simon Newcomb. In his last contributions on this subject he 
definitely announced his conviction that the physical universe 
is finite. At one place he expressed this conviction as follov^s: 
"The universe, so far as we can see it, is a bounded whole. 
It is surrounded by an immense girdle of stars, which, to our 
vision, appears as the Milky Way. While we cannot set 
exact limits to its distance we may yet confidently say that 
it is bounded" {Side-Lights on Astronomy, 1906, p. 74; also 
reprinted in Elliot's Five Foot Library, Vol. 30). 

And, in another chapter of the same work, this author 
expressed the possibility that the boundary of the universe 
may even be definitely determined by astronomers of the fu- 
ture, thus opening all creation for human contemplation. He 
says: "It is a great encouragement to the astronomer that, 
although he cannot yet set any exact boundary to this universe 
of ours, he is gathering faint indications that it has a bound- 
ary, which his successors not many generations hence may 
locate so that the astronomer shall include all creation itself 
within his mental grasp" {Ibid., p. 6). 

That the universe is finite is also regarded as the preferable 
idea by Carl Synder, as witness the following words: "We are 
undoubtedly obliged to make option between the two possi- 
bilities, and to the writer it has always seemed that the idea 
of a finite universe was preferable" {The World Machine, 
1907, p. 448). 

Among other men of science who arrived at the same or 
similar conclusions as to the bounds of the physical universe, 
was the late Alfred Wallace. One of the conclusions to which 
he was led in his astronomical studies to answer the great 
question discussed in one of his greatest works, was, "That 
the stellar universe forms one connected whole; and, though 
of enormous extent, is yet finite, and its extent determinable" 
{Mans Place in the Universe, p. 313)- 

Lord Kelvin, in his maturer period of research and investi- 
gation, also arrived at the inevitable conclusion that the physi- 
cal universe, as far as can be determined, must necessarily be 
finite. 

To quote Kelvin against this position of his maturer period, 
by citing certain earlier statements made by him, will not lessen 
the weight of his authority. Those earlier statements were 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 103 

not in the nature of direct declarations upon this point; but 
they were made in connection with his discussion of the na- 
ture of light and other subjects, where the question of the 
actual extent of the universe was not directly involved. 

It may also be said that, in spite of his contention that the 
universe could not be conceived of either as finite or as in- 
finite, even the philosopher Sir William Hamilton seems per- 
sonally to have held it to be finite. Thus, in a letter to Henry 
Calderwood, dated 26th Sept., 1854, he said, ''The created 
universe is, and you assert it to be, finite" {Lectures on Meta- 
physics and Logic, p. 533). And, again, he said, "Finally, let 
us suppose the created universe (which you do not) to be in- 
finite; in that case we should be reduced to the dilemma of 
asserting two infinites, which is contradictory, or of asserting 
the supernal absurdity, that God the Creator is finite, and the 
universe created by Him is infinite" {Ibid., p. 533). 

Thus many of the world's greatest thinkers have been forced 
to the conviction that the physical universe is finite. And, 
while there have been many other and perhaps equally great 
thinkers who have held the opposite view; namely, that the 
universe is infinite, this does not invalidate the testimony of 
those whom we have cited, or might cite, as holding or hav- 
ing held, that the universe is finite. And, of course, the direct 
evidence which we shall now proceed to present in proof of 
the finiteness of the universe, could in no way be affected by 
mere numbers of witnesses against such finiteness. 

H THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, REGARDED AS A 
UNITARY SYSTEM, NECESSARILY FINITE 

To get some idea as to the possible extent of the universe, 
or as to whether it is finite or infinite, it is necessary to con- 
sider its general structure. In this connection, we shall, how- 
ever, consider only the general outlines of several theories of 
the universe; and afterwards we shall consider the evidence 
for finiteness from its structure more in detail. 

A very facinating theory as to the structure of the sidereal 
heavens was one that gradually arose during the latter part of 
the eighteenth century, and was more and more fully de- 
veloped during the nineteenth century, during the greater part 
of which it held sway. 



I04 Creation Ex Nihilo 

According to this theory, in its more developed form, the 
universe consists of an almost infinitely complex cosmic unity 
of revolving satellites, planets and stars, of revolving systems 
within revolving systems — ^wheels within wheels — all moving 
around some common centre. Thus, satellite systems, like that 
of our own earth and moon and like those of other planets 
known to be accompanied by satellites, have their own revolu- 
tions, amid their individual rotations, around their common 
centre of gravity close to or within their ruling planet. A 
number of these satellite systems in turn revolve around their 
central sun (star), or rather around their common centre of 
gravity, thus constituting a planetary system, like that of our 
own solar system. Several of such planet-systems were sup- 
posed to revolve around their common centre, constituting what 
might be called a sun- or star-system. And this is undoubtedly 
illustrated in the many physically double stars, triple stars, 
quadruple stars and even more complex multiple stars, some 
of which have been found actually to revolve around their 
common centre. Of notable double stars may be mentioned 
6 1 Cygni, with the second largest known parallax, the two com- 
panions of which perform their revolutions around their centre 
of gravity in a period of about 450 years, each supposedly at- 
tended by a retinue of revolving planets with revolving satel- 
lites. A number of these sun-systems (binary stars, etc.), ac- 
cording to this theory, supposedly revolve about their common 
centre, thus constituting a system of a still higher order, some- 
times spoken of as a group-system. Then, a number of these 
group-systems were supposed to form a still larger star-neigh- 
borhood, all revolving around their common centre. And star- 
neighborhoods of this latter order were imagined to revolve 
around other similar star-neighborhoods, or around their com- 
mon centre of gravity; and groups of these latter, around still 
other groups ; and so on, until the whole mighty universe would 
revolve around its ultimate centre of gravity. 

The higher systems that formed the ultimate universe, which 
were of course supposed to be either immense nebulae or 
groups of nebulae — and which were then supposedly so many 
mighty universes of stars like our galactic or Milky Way sys- 
tem — would thus have one major revolution. The next below 
this order, in addition to this major revolution, would have 
another revolution. The next below this order would have 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 105 

another revolution, in addition to those already mentioned. 
The next lower order would have still another revolution. 
And thus the lowest order, the satellites, would have a com- 
plexity of revolutions and rotations incalculably intricate and 
wonderful. 

By many it was even believed that the ultimate centre is 
some great central sun. This central sun Madler held to be 
the bright star Alcyone of the Pleiades, which was estimated to 
be many thousand times as large as our sun. And this belief 
was shared by many writers. Moreover, as it became more and 
more definitely established that the sun with its retinue of 
planets, accompanied by their satellites, is in motion through 
space, this added its apparent evidence to this theory of a mighty 
unitary revolving universe. By some it was held that the 
sun itself is describing a gigantic orbit around Alcyone; by 
others, that it is revolving, with its revolving planets, around 
a more subordinate centre, itself in motion around a higher 
centre or around the ultimate central Alcyone. Lambert even 
held that, instead of one central sun, there should be many; 
and Inasmuch as these could not be seen or definitely located, 
he believed them to be non-luminous, or at least not self- 
luminous. But, assuming a possible unitary revolution of the 
starry universe, it would be far more likely that the ultimate 
centre would be an immaterial one, the real centre of gravity 
of the whole. Indeed, this would seem to be the only centre 
possible, as that centre would itself necessarily have to be 
motionless, itself the balancing point of all the motions and 
forces of all the bodies of the starry universe. 

Thus, the whole universe would have to be in motion around 
its ultimate centre of gravity. And, of course, to the Chris- 
tian speculator this naturally suggested that that ultimate com- 
mon centre might be the abode or throne of its ultimate Cause, 
the universe's almighty Ruler, by Whose power it exists and 
Is thus energized with mighty revolutions, rotations, etc. Many 
truly eloquent passages on this point could be cited from 
the writings of astronomers and popular scientific lecturers 
of the period — for the theory became almost common prop- 
erty among even matter-of-fact astronomers — as well as of 
Christian apologists. 

It is certainly a facinating theory to the imaginative mind; 
and even as a scientific hypothesis it is indescribably grand. 



I06 Creation Ex Nihilo 

What complexity of revolutions within revolutions, and these 
again within higher revolutions, up to that all-comprehensive 
revolution of the great universal whole! What imagination 
could conceive it and what mathematics could resolve its mar- 
velous problems! If the direct solution of even the well- 
known problem of three mutually attracting bodies is beyond 
the power of our present higher mathematics, what to us 
transcendental functions and numerical tables of a mathe- 
matics of a transcendently higher order, would be required 
to solve the inconceivably more complicated and profounder 
problems of such a well-nigh infinite universe of mutually 
attracting stars with their multitudinous revolutions within 
revolutions! Such might be conceived of as a delightful occu- 
pation and exercise for glorified men and seraphic intelli- 
gences, — 

To wander up and down the heavens of space 
With flight of thought and with an angel's sight 

To read creation's story, and to trace 

God's plans for aeons through those realms of light ! 

It is thus readily seen why this theory so strongly appealed 
to the scientific imagination of a former generation. And, 
even though somewhat materialistic in its nature and tendency, 
what could give the Christian apologist a sublimer concep- 
tion of the greatness and power of his God, than such a 
theory of the structure and God-controlled operation of His 
mighty handiwork! 

Great clockwork of the stars, in one grand whole 
Revolve with myriad motions, then, and nod 

Each unto each, and all to His control. 
Sublimely moving round the throne of God, 

And beating seconds, seasons, cycles, e'er, 

Till time is o'er, when He will touch your spring 

Again, and from the heights of heaven declare: 
"Eternity! Again let angels sing!" 

Ad Astra (L. F. G.) 

It might be said that, though this theory has some things 
apparently in conflict with some established facts of science, 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 107 

yet it would be rather difficult even now altogether to refute 
it. We are surely unable, from the few established data as 
to the sun's path, definitely to state that it is moving in a 
straight line. Moreover, the period of astronomical observa- 
tion would certainly as yet be far too short to have gathered 
sufficient data to determine whether the observed path is a 
straight line or an infinitesimal arc of a mighty curved orbit 
around some far off centre. Of late years, much attention has 
been devoted to the proper motions of the stars by the Dutch 
astronomer J. C. Kapteyn and others. And, upon the 
basis of their observations, it has been found that there are 
apparently two drifts of stars, as far as their motions have 
been quite definitely determined, and that these drifts or con- 
cert motions appear to be in almost opposite directions, 
or nearly toward opposite points on the celestial sphere. No 
apparent cause has yet been discovered; but these motions may 
be just what we should expect from the known or local stellar 
system if it were a connected whole. And may these motions 
not also suggest a mighty revolution of stars somewhat even 
like that referred to, parts of the opposite orbital paths of a 
lesser or greater stellar revolution of a higher order being 
perhaps here marked by these two opposite drifts? At any 
rate, these drifts open up a great problem for solution. 

There is, however, a bare possibility that, as the sun's way 
will more and more definitely be plotted out or located through 
space and Its velocity determined with greater accuracy, this 
might itself in some way afford a sort of measure, or a greater 
astronomer's foot-rule, with which to measure parallaxes and 
determine star-distances and star-motions. In such a way the 
problem as to whether star-motions describe curved orbits, 
and as to whether there are gigantic stellar or universe revolu- 
tions that we do not yet know of, may be solved. But all 
that has thus far been established is that our solar system is 
moving at the rate of about ten to fifteen miles a second in 
the direction of some point In the constellation Lyra, per- 
haps its star delta, as some calculations Indicate, or perhaps, ac- 
cording to one calculation given by Newcomb {The Stars, 
p. 91), its brilliant star Vega. And as to the real paths of 
the other stars our data are, of course, equally inadequate to 
make any dogmatic statement. 

However, if our stellar universe be regarded as having 



lo8 Creation Ex Ifihito 

somewhat definite bounds, it would seem that it should almost 
necessarily also have a somewhat definite centre of gravity 
somewhere. And it would also seem necessary for its stellar 
motions, by the very nature of the action of gravitation within 
such a stellar organism, to describe curves rather than straight 
lines. And, whether this is true or not, it should not take 
many more generations of astronomical observation to de- 
termine. For, if it be regarded as fairly well established that 
the present apex of the sun's way is, let us say, the star Vega, 
then, if in the future it should be found that successive other 
points mark that apex, its curved path, even apart from other 
data, would apparently be established. But, if the centre of 
such orbit, or one of its foci, were marked by an enormous 
star, it would be only a matter of chance; for surely no one 
star could be conceived of as in any sense such a controlling 
gravitational centre for the whole sidereal universe as is the 
sun for its retinue of planets. Hence, the definite conviction 
that, even if the whole stellar system revolves about some ulti- 
mate centre, it must almost necessarily be an immaterial one, 
and, of course, necessarily the real centre of gravity. 

Even Charles Young was not altogether averse to the be- 
lief that there might be a universe-revolution around some cen- 
tre, similar to that of the planets around our sun, as is evident 
from the following words: "A favorite idea has been that the 
mass of stars which constitutes our system has a slow rotation 
like that of a body on its axis, the plane of this general 
revolution coinciding with the plane of the galaxy. Such 
a general motion is not in any way inconsistent with the in- 
dependent motions of the individual stars, and there is per- 
haps a slight inherent probability in favor of such a move- 
ment; but thus far we have no evidence that it really exists — 
indeed, there hardly could be any such evidence at present, 
because exact Astronomy is not yet old enough to have gath- 
ered the necessary data" {General Astronomy, pp. 512-513). 

It is almost needless to say that, upon the basis of this 
theory of the structure of the starry universe, it must neces- 
sarily be finite in extent. And this was also the implied, and 
in some cases the expressed, conception of those who held to 
this view. The very idea of such a universal revolution, or 
perhaps even better rotation, of the universe, implies finiteness 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic IV hole 109 

as a unified whole. It even implies successive beginning and 
returning points in rotation. Moreover, no multiplication 
of necessarily finite revolutions of equally finite systems, with- 
in such revolution, could even constitute an infinity of 
such revolutions or systems; and, therefore, they could in 
their aggregate not make an infinite universe. Then, too, the 
very notion of such a universal revolution or rotation would 
necessarily imply something within which it would have to 
be taking place, and therefore a something more extended and 
therefore greater. And, as it would be self-contradictory to 
speak of an infinitely-extended universe as revolving within a 
something of greater extension, this supposedly infinite uni- 
verse must necessarily be finite. Indeed, as elsewhere noted, 
an infinite could in no sense be conceived of as in motion, as 
such motion, like any motion whatsoever, would imply a fixed 
or relatively fixed containing something beyond it. Hence, in 
accordance with this theory of the structure of the universe — 
as it regards it as a moving entity — it must be finite. 

And this would also be true of any other theory of the 
universe as a unified structure, that acknowledges the presence 
of revolutions within it, whether in whole or in separated 
parts. And thus, the very presence of motion — as an evi- 
dence of finiteness — would also contradict the conception of 
its infinity upon any other hitherto proposed theory. We 
might also say, in passing, that the very conception of form 
as attached to the universe, according to this theory, would 
also imply its finiteness ; for, whatever has form has bounds 
or limits, and can therefore not be an infinite entity. And 
this, also, would apply to any other theory whatsoever that 
would body forth the universe as an existence with any 
form whatever — or as a unified entity. 

But the theory of the structure of the universe as a revolv- 
ing unitary whole is no longer seriously maintained by most 
men of science. According to the present more generally 
accepted theory of the structure of the stellar universe, it is 
still regarded as a system, or in a sense a unified organism, 
both as to its constituent materials and as to some general 
structure. But, according to it, the stars within it are re- 
lated to one another somewhat like bees in a swarm. In 
other words, they would form what may be called a star- 



no Creation Ex Nihil o 

republic, as contrasted with a monarchy like that of our solar 
system with its sun as practically absolute ruler. While 
their motions must be somewhat affected by their star-neigh- 
bors, the nearest of which would be from three to eight 
light years away from them, they might nevertheless be spoken 
of as practically independent, as compared with those of our 
planets. 

Upon this theory, according to which the stars still con- 
stitute a system and yet are relatively independent, Charles 
Young expressed himself thus: ''That the stars are organized 
into a system or systems of some sort can hardly be doubted, 
for this seems to be a necessary consequence of their mutual 
attraction. But that the system is one at all after the pat- 
tern of the solar system, in which the different members move 
in closed orbits, — orbits that are permanent except for the 
slow changes produced by perturbation, — this is almost cer- 
tainly impossible" {General Astronomy, p. 512). Of course, 
this must not be taken as contradicting another statement by 
the same astronomer, quoted above, on the bare possibility of 
a revolution of the stellar universe as a unitary whole. This 
latter statement is made in the light of established data. But, 
whether the future will establish data to overbalance present 
indications, can only be guessed at at this stage of astronomi- 
cal research. 

But the points we made above with reference to the 
theory of the universe regarded as a revolving unitary whole, 
as there also indicated, are applicable also to the universe as 
here considered. It must, upon its very face, necessarily be 
considered finite. And, from the following consideration of 
the evidence for its finiteness from several fairly well-known 
details — largely upon the basis of this latter view of its struc- 
ture — its finiteness will become practically a mathematical 
certainty. 

Ill EVIDENCE OF FINITENESS IN THE GEN- 
ERAL DISTRIBUTION AND APPARENT NUM- 
BER OF THE STARS 

Among the direct evidences that the number of stars in the 
universe is limited, is their well known arrangement or dis- 
tribution. Taking the Milky Way as a belt with an axis 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole ill 

perpendicular to it, the poles of this axis are known as the 
galactic poles. Now, it is a well known fact — partly even 
to the casual observer, but much more so to the astronomer 
with his telescope — that the numbers of stars for equal sky- 
areas increase as we proceed from these galactic poles toward 
the star-belt of the Milky Way, their number being of course 
least around the galactic poles. This fact was early observed 
by astronomers, and later formed the basis for the so-called 
grindstone theory of the universe, given to the world by 
Thomas Wright of Durham, in his work, entitled, An Orig- 
inal Theory or New Hypothesis of the Universej published in 
1750. According to this now rather generally accepted the- 
ory, the universe of stars, presumably nearly equally distrib- 
uted, is in the form of a grindstone or millstone, with a 
diameter about eight to twelve times its thickness, our solar 
system being situated near the centre. This general form of 
the galactic system has also been described as lens-shaped, or 
bun-shaped. While several slightly modified forms of this 
theory have been suggested, this statement will be sufficient for 
our present purpose. 

The stars, as we pass from the galactic poles toward the 
Milky Way, would thus naturally appear more and more 
numerous, because, from the greater distances through which 
we look, more and more stars would be projected against the 
surface of an all-containing imaginary sphere. This fact of 
the apparent distribution of the stars is itself already sugges- 
tive of some definite system in the telescopically visible starry 
universe, and, of course, of its probable finiteness. As to- 
ward the poles there are less stars, and especially less telescopic 
stars, the apparent evidence is that in that direction its out- 
posts are nearer to us, and that they are relatively only farther 
and farther away as we approach the galactic belt. 

It should, of course, be said that, according to Kapteyn's 
researches, the evidence is, that, while the stars in the Milky 
Way system are apparently nearly evenly distributed — apart 
from the apparent star-girdle itself — there nevertheless is a 
really denser belt or ring of stars, though somewhat irregular 
in form, etc., in the plane of the system. This star-belt is 
probably somewhere beyond what might be spoken of, in a 
general way, as the galactic locus of the tenth to the fifteenth 
magnitudes of stars, but not likely extending to the bounds 



112 Creation Ex Nihilo 

of the whole system. E. C. Pickering has come to the con- 
clusion that the density of stars in the Milky Way belt is 
about two times as great as that in the other regions of the 
galactic system. This would give the galactic system some- 
what of a Saturnian, or wreath-like, appearance, if viewed 
from without its plane and beyond its bounds. But, apart 
from that galactic wreath or belt of stars and the lesser local 
groups, the stars are undoubtedly quite evenly scattered up 
and down the depths of space. But, even apart from that 
galactic belt, there is an apparent increase of stars from 
galactic poles to galactic equator, thus indicating that the 
diameter of the galaxy is greater than its thickness. And, 
of course, the very appearance of the universe from this stand- 
point of the apparent distribution of its stars, is naturally that 
of a limited unitary whole. 

Now, let us consider the stars as distributed into magni- 
tudes according to the relative amounts of light they give. 
Upon this basis it is found that the numbers for about ten or 
eleven successive magnitudes vary according to a geometrical 
ratio of nearly four. Thus the number of stars of any 
magnitude up to about the tenth or eleventh is from three 
to four times that of the magnitude next preceding it. But 
after about the tenth or eleventh magnitude this ratio gradually 
decreases; in fact, it apparently more and more tends to ap- 
proach zero. We are not now, however, including the wreath 
of Milky Way stars. Nor are we here considering the fact 
that the maximum density is farther away in the plane of the 
galactic system than toward its poles. 

In line with this are also the conclusions of Chapman and 
Melotte, that the total number of stars for fainter magnitudes 
is smaller than had formerly been supposed, thus considerably 
reducing the number of stars in the universe below the num- 
ber assumed by some exaggerated former estimates. 

All these facts that the density of star-distribution is less 
and less as we pass outward, etc., constitute a remarkable 
bit of evidence for the finiteness of the sidereal universe. And 
these facts have also been accepted as such by some noted 
astronomers. Thus A. S. Eddington, Professor of Astron- 
omy, University of Cambridge, England, writes as follows: 
"The decrease of density at great distances from the sun rep- 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 113 

resents the fact that the stellar system is limited in extent, 
and as it is notorious that the limits are very much nearer to- 
wards the galactic poles than in the galatic plane, a representa- 
tion which did not include a variation with galactic latitude 
would be very imperfect" {Stellar Movements and the StruC' 
ture of the Universe, 19 14, p. 202). 

And, of course, the total amount of light received from all 
these stars of the successive magnitudes should also afford us 
some evidence as to their number. Thus, according to New- 
comb, the amount of light received from all the stars of one 
magnitude is about twice that received from those of the sec- 
ond magnitude above it. That is, the light from the stars, 
of the fifth magnitude is about twice that from those of the 
third magnitude. This is due to the fact that, while the light 
of the stars of successive magnitudes varies as about two and. 
one-half to one, the number of stars varies as about one tO' 
three and one-half. Or the rate of increase in light received 
from successive magnitudes is about 1.4 to 1.5. But after the 
tenth or eleventh magnitude this light ratio also decreases, as 
we pass outward from magnitude to magnitude. 

This fact is also referred to by Young in his General Astron- 
omy, page 468, where he, however, apparently makes New- 
comb consider the amounts of light received from successive 
magnitudes to be equal. And, in another connection, Young 
makes the following statement: "Beyond the tenth magnitude 
the number of small stars does not increase proportionately fast, 
so that if we could carry on the account of stars to the twen- 
tieth magnitude, it is practically certain that we should not 
find the total light of the aggregate stars of each succeeding 
magnitude increasing at any such rate as from the seventh to 
the tenth" {General Astronomy, p. 475). 

In fact, the maximum of increase in the sum total of light 
received from the different magnitudes of stars is reached with 
about the tenth and eleventh magnitudes. And from those 
magnitudes the ratio of light per magnitude decreases. This, 
of course, means that the stars themselves increase in number 
or distribution up to about the tenth or eleventh magnitude, 
according to a certain ratio, and that from that point this ratio 
gradually decreases. And the implied conclusion seems to be 
that their number may approach the zero point at some dis^- 
tance beyond the twenty-first or the twenty-second magnitude. 



114 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Thus, our starry system may at least not extend far beyond 
the bounds of what might be considered the apparent equiva- 
lent of the twenty-first or the twenty-second magnitude. 

We realize, to be sure, that in this consideration we are 
treating star magnitudes as proportionate to, or almost syn- 
onymous with, star distances. V\^hile this does by no means 
altogether correspond to actual facts, it is close enough as an 
approximation, and therefore as a basis for reasoning. Nor 
would our general conclusions from these assumed data be ma- 
terially altered by the actual data of fact. And, of course, we 
are not now taking into consideration the undoubtedly denser 
ring or wreath of stars in the galactic zone, that forms the real 
nucleus of the otherwise only apparently denser Milky Way. 
But even this would not invalidate our arguments. 

Moreover, the increase in definition and power of the tele- 
scope, as improved from decade to decade — as well as the im- 
proved application of photography to the charting of stars — 
does not result in a proportionate increase in the number of 
new stars discovered. Thus, if the distribution of stars con- 
tinued indefinitely with approximately the same density, we 
should naturally expect that, with a doubling of telescopic 
magnification and proportionate increase in its light and defini- 
tion — in other words, with twice its former reach of distance — 
the number of stars visible should be increased eight-fold. The 
new sphere of vision with a radius twice as long as the old, 
should thus naturally include eight times the number of stars 
in the old, as similar volumes vary as the cubes of their like 
dimensions. This is, however, found to be far from the fact, 
as w^e pass beyond the approximate magnitudes already men- 
tioned. Indeed, equal successive improvements in our instru- 
ments result in ever less and less added new stars. 

Assuming now the highest power and definition of the tele- 
scope yet attained to be equivalent to an increase, in our radius 
of vision, of fifteen hundred times, then, all other things being 
equal, we might expect the number of stars visible to be 
3j375>ooOjOOO times those visible to the unaided eye. And, 
taking the approximate number visible to the naked eye to be 
about 6,000, this would make the number of telescopic stars — 
upon the basis of an indefinite and even distribution of stars, 
and of course under ideal conditions — to be 20,250,000,000,- 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 115 

000. But, it is needless to say that this is probably upwards 
of a hundred thousand times as many as could actually be 
visible through the most powerful telescope yet constructed, 
and even if assisted with photographic apparatus. 

It may, of course, be objected, that this theoretical magnifica- 
tion does not express the actual possibility of the telescope, be- 
cause of its too great magnification in comparison with the 
amount of light admitted by the field lens. We indeed used 
a magnifying power of thirty-seven and one-half times the diam- 
eter of a forty-inch object glass, whereas the normal magnify- 
ing power used should be only about twenty times that of the 
diameter of the object glass in inches. And yet, under ideal 
atmospheric conditions, a power of one hundred times the 
aperture in inches could be used, though this would by no 
means be the power used in trying to resolve stars. We shall 
therefore assume a basis of observation that cannot be ob- 
jected to. 

Let us assume the pupil of the human eye to be one-fourth 
of an inch in diameter, which is probably exaggerated, even 
when the observer looks at the stars. Then, a forty-inch ob- 
ject glass of the telescope would be a hundred and sixty times 
as large in diameter, and should, therefore, under ideal con- 
ditions, admit the square of one hundred and sixty, or twenty- 
five thousand six hundred, times as much light as the human 
eye. Then, even if the magnifying power of the eye-piece were 
only as great as the diameter of the object glass is greater than 
that of the eye (an abnormally low magnification), the num- 
ber of telescopic stars — if evenly distributed to the farthest 
reaches of space — should be the cube of one hundred and sixty 
times the number visible to the naked eye, or 160^ times 6,000, 
or 24,576,000,000. And even this would be several hundred 
times as many as the telescope would reveal under abnormally 
favorable circumstances. This should therefore be very convinc- 
ing proof that the density of star-distribution must very rapidly 
decrease as we pass outward from a certain spherical zone — 
probably that which we have indicated above — and that this 
decrease in ratio of number and density rapidly even ap- 
proaches zero. Hence, the probability almost certainly is, that 
our instruments have already nearly exhausted the depths of 
space, and resolved the number of its existing stars. 

Thus the evidence from this consideration is almost unan- 



n6 Creation Ex Nihilo 

swerable, that the number of stars of our star-system is lim- 
ited. Indeed, all discoveries with the telescope, assisted by 
photography, seem to indicate that their number is probably 
not greatly over several hundred millions. Other evidence, 
such as that from proper motions, it might be said, however, 
point to a greater number — probably to as many as at least 
several hundred millions more. But even if their number could 
be shown to be 1,000,000,000, as is estimated by some author- 
ities, that would not be infinite. And very many more than 
1,000,000,000 it is almost certain do not exist in our sj^stem, 
unless perchance many millions of them are very minute as 
compared with our sun. 

It must, of course, be conceded that there are probably many 
dark stars — not to speak of possible planets and satellites, re- 
volving around other stars or suns — that cannot be detected by 
our instruments. But that these cannot be so numerous nor 
so large as in any great degree to affect our general conclusions 
as to the extent of the universe, is altogether probable even 
from general principles; while it is practically certain from 
the known motions of the nearest stars — with but few well 
known exceptions — as well as also from other applications of 
the law of gravitation. Although Sir Robert Ball estimates 
the combined mass of these dark bodies as possibly very great, 
there is no real evidence to warrant such a conclusion. And 
hence other astronomers are not inclined to follow him in this 
line of speculation. Indeed, if their number and mass were 
considerable, there would be a measurable obstruction of light 
from even the visible stars, especially from the great swarm 
of those whose light travels to us from the very distant parts 
of the Milky Way. 

Moreover, if there were any large number of dark bodies of 
stellar magnitude distributed through stellar space, observable 
occultations would necessarily have to be very frequent. But 
as this is not the case, their number must, of course, be com- 
paratively small. The variable stars of the various types, of 
some of which the variation is due to occultation, would surely 
not constitute a very large number. And, as to some hypo- 
thetical clouds of light-absorbing particles floating in space, 
especially in line with the denser part of the Milky Way, the 
evidence from the light actually received should be sufficient 
proof that, if such dark matter exists, it interferes but very 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 117 

little with the light or visibility of the stars. Therefore, as- 
tronomers quite generally consider this point as of but very 
little consequence. 

So far we have considered star-distribution in a general way 
as an evidence that their number is finite, and that therefore 
the universe is limited in extent. We shall now proceed to 
consider the extent of the universe from the probable density in 
distribution of the stars. 

According to Eddington's calculation, based upon the latest 
astronomical data available, the star-density is such that there 
are probably between 30 and 40 stars within a radius of five 
parsecs from our solar system. This unit of measure, sug- 
gested by Hunter, corresponds to a parallax of one second of 
arc, and is equivalent to 206,000 times our distance from the 
sun (astronomical units), and is therefore about 19 X 10^^ 
miles. And as for the higher magnitudes the density has been 
determined apparently to be considerably less, as we have al- 
ready noted, let us assume the average density throughout to 
be 27 stars for a sphere with a radius of five parsecs. Let us 
now assume the total number of stars in the universe thus far 
explored to be 1,000,000,000, as all the evidence at hand is 
against assuming their number to be much greater. Following 
a simple method suggested by Newcomb, it is readily seen 
that, as like dimensions of similar volumes are to each other 
as the cube roots of their contents, the radius of a sphere hav- 
ing 1,000,000,000 stars would be to the radius of a sphere 
having 27 stars as 1,000 is to 3. Or, since a sphere containing 
27 stars would have a radius of 5 parsecs, a, sphere containing 
1,000,000,000 stars would have a radius of 333 1/3 (^^^\ 
times 5 parsecs J or 16662/3 parsecs, or approximately 5,400 
light years. Hence, even if their average density of distribu- 
tion (in number of stars) were such that there would be 27 
stars to a sphere with a radius of 5 parsecs, assuming the uni- 
verse to be spherical in form with our solar system near the 
centre, its bounds in every direction would be only about 5,400 
light years away from us. 

Moreover, even if the starry universe had eight times 1,000,- 
000,000 stars — a number of times as many as are known to 
US with the aid of the best modern instruments — upon the same 



Ii8 Creation Ex Nihilo 

basis of distribution, it would have a radius of only twice that 
of a universe of 1,000,000,000 stars, or about 10,800 light 
years. And we need not comment that such would be a very 
finite radius — a very finite universe. 

All these figures are, of course, based upon the supposition 
of an equal distribution or density of stars. However, as we 
pass outward toward the confines of the universe, the density 
of stars grows less and less, as already noted. This would, 
therefore, somewhat lengthen the radius of our universe-sphere. 
Nevertheless, as the number of stars known to us with the 
aid of the best instruments, for reasons already given, may 
nearly exhaust the actual number of stars in our galactic 
sidereal system, it is not probable that its radius can much ex- 
ceed 5,000 light years, if indeed it is that great. 

Nor would the basis of the millstone shape of the sidereal 
heavens very materially alter the above conclusions. It would 
only extend the bounds more in one direction, etc. Moreover, 
it may be said that, whatever be the number of the stars and 
the shape of our stellar system, it would nevertheless have to 
be finite in extent. Indeed, why say shape, for shape itself im- 
plies boundary, and therefore finitenessf And the same is true 
even of number and distance. 

IV EVIDENCE OF FINITENESS IN THE STELLAR 
MOTIONS 

Another line of evidence against an infinite universe of stars 
is found in the motions of the stars. It has long been a well 
established fact that the sun with its retinue of planets is in 
motion, as evidenced by the apparent separation of the stars 
in one part of the heavens, their apparent coming together in 
the opposite part, and the apparent drift of the stars along the 
zone between these parts. This apparent displacement of the 
stars, due to the sun's motion through space, is called their 
parallactic motion. This point is well illustrated by the drift- 
ing of a boat on a lake entirely surrounded by woods, from 
which the persons drifting can easily determine their general 
course, as they observe the apparently relatively moving trees 
on all sides. Moreover, the spectroscope also adds its testimony 
to this evidence for the locus of the sun's motion among the 
stars. Thus the lines in the spectrum of the stars in the gen- 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 1 19 

eral apparent neighborhood of Lyra and Hercules shift toward 
the violet end, which, according to a well known principle 
(Doppler's), indicates that we are moving in that general di- 
rection. So the lines in the spectrum of the stars in the oppo- 
site direction on the celestial sphere, shift toward the red end, 
indicating that we are moving away from that part of the 
heavens. Nor does the sun apparently ever twice occupy ex- 
actly the same point of space, even though its course be some 
gigantic orbit, as no orbit is itself really closed; for every 
known orbit is of a spiral nature. This is true of the moon's 
orbit around the earth, as it accompanies the earth around the 
sun. And this is true of the orbits of the planets as they 
journey with the sun through space. 

As already noted, the latest determination places the point, 
toward which our solar system is at present moving, in the 
constellation Lyra, probably at or near the brilliant star Vega. 
And, the approximate speed, according to the more recent cal- 
culations, is from twelve to fifteen miles per second. Further 
explanation of this point is not needed here. 

What is true of our sun is found to be equally true of the 
stars in general, among which our sun's size and velocity are 
by no means among the greatest. In fact, it is certain that 
there is no star in the heavens above absolutely at rest, any 
more than there is any planet at rest — or even any atom or 
electron, of which we shall speak in a later chapter. By the 
combined observations of many astronomers in different lands, 
data have been collected, from which the approximate average 
velocity of all stars observed has been found to be about twenty 
to twenty-one miles a second. But, of course, the proper 
motions are the real motions only when they are perpendicular 
to our line of vision. And this assumes that the distances are 
practically known. But, as probably in nearly all instances 
there is also a partial motion either away from or toward us, 
the average real star-motions are undoubtedly greater than the 
proper motions. The real motions may be called the resultants 
of the proper motions and the motions toward and away from 
us called the radial motions. But more and more even these 
radial motions are being approximately determined with the 
use of the spectroscope equipped with a camera, so that the 
real motions of the stars will probably more definitely be 
known. And as to whether these motions are apparently 



120 Creation Ex Nihilo 

straight lines or describe curved orbits, the data are as yet lack- 
ing, owing to the necessary time element in such observations 
for the determination of even the minutest arc of such a 
gigantic orbit. 

It will thus also be seen that from millennium to millennium 
the configurations of the constellations are undergoing changes 
— though very slowly — by these proper motions. And thus we 
really see the very constellations of heaven different from 
what the ancient world saw them. And, for that matter, on 
account of the time element in the transmission of light, we 
really do not see the constellations as they are to-day, but as 
they looked from a score of years to many hundreds of years 
ago, however small the changes in their configurations may 
have been. And, if any star were blotted out, we should not 
miss it until after the lapse of time required for its last rays 
of light to reach us. Surely, there is nothing permanent even 
in the starry heavens. There is "change and decay in all 
around I see" — in ourselves, in every part of the surrounding 
world, and in the very heavens. 

Now, upon the basis of the generally estimated extent of 
the Milky Way system, and the estimated number and average 
size or mass of the stars, the average velocity that we should 
expect is an approach to the average calculated velocity of the 
stars. And where velocities are less than this average, they 
may be accounted for by a lesser density or mass of the neigh- 
boring stars. And where this average velocity is exceeded, it 
may be accounted for by a greater mass and number of the 
surrounding stars. Moreover, even the velocity of Arcturus 
and that of the seventh magnitude star 1830 Groombridge — 
which are probably around 200, or even more, miles per second 
— need not be accounted for by supposing that these stars are 
injected visitors from another universe beyond that of our 
Milky Way system. Their larger velocity may be due to sev- 
eral things. It may be due partly to greater numbers and 
masses of surrounding stars, and partly to stars closer to them 
than the average assumed distance. Moreover, the number 
and average size or mass of the stars in our system — counting 
also dark bodies — is considerably greater than used to be esti- 
mated, while the extent or general density of their distribu- 
tion may also differ somewhat from that of theory. 

At any rate, it should be noted that this very average velocity 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole I2i 

proves the universe to be both finite in extent and finite in mass 
of matter. And, for that matter, this would undoubtedly be 
true upon the basis of any other average velocity. It might be 
stated in this connection, that, in an infinite universe, gravi- 
tation would have to be infinite at any one point. And, either 
stellar velocities would have to be immeasurably greater than 
the actual fact, or, as elsewhere noted, there would be no mo- 
tion at all, as all the lines of force would be balanced at every 
point. This latter seems rather to be the correct conclusion — 
upon the assumption of an infinite universe. 

A word should here be said as to the so-called critical veloc- 
ity, as determined by Newcomb; namely, twenty-five miles a 
second, any exceeding of which should supposedly carry a star 
beyond the bounds of the known universe {Popular Astronomy, 
p. 487, sqq.). Upon the basis of this calculation, stars like 
1830 Groombridge and Arcturus, whose velocities are prob- 
ably upward of 200 miles a second, have been supposed to have 
come into our galactic system from an infinite distance or from 
some ulterior sj^stem and to be bound on their long journey 
outward into space toward or through another ulterior system. 
The velocities of these and some other stars have therefore 
been used as an argument for an infinite universe, or for the 
supposed necessary existence of so-called universes of stars be- 
yond our own. 

It is, of course, seen that the implied supposition in such a 
calculation of stellar velocities is that they are wholly due to, 
or caused by, mutual attractions among the stars. This leaves 
out of consideration what is absolutely necessary to account 
for any motions whatsoever; namely, some initial motions not 
due to their own attractions but impressed upon the stars by 
a power other than that of mere mutual stellar attractions. 
If this were not the case, then the motions of stars at or near the 
centre of the stellar system could not be accounted for except 
upon the supposition that the universe is very lopsided in mat- 
ter or in star-distribution. If present motions were due merely 
to stellar attractions operating through indefinite ages, then, if 
the universe were finite, there would necessarily have to be a 
balance of forces and therefore no stellar movements at or 
around its gravitational centre. That this is not the case is 
evident from the great known velocity of the stars, and even 
of our own sun, near the apparent centre of the known uni- 



122 Creation Ex Nihilo 

verse. And if the universe were infinite, there would be in- 
finite attractions from every direction, and therefore perfectly 
equalized or balanced, at every point; and hence there would 
be wo stellar motions. As the latter alternative is altogether 
contrary to fact, the universe can not be infinite, as also ex- 
plained elsewhere. Hence, we are compelled by the former 
alternative to regard the present motions of the stars as the 
resultants of some initial force or forces impressed upon then:, 
in some primal condition plus the force of gravitation oper- 
ating since that primal origination of them. 

Newcomb even at places also implies the possible existence of 
some to us unknown force or forces operating. And, in speak- 
ing of such an apparent runaway star arriving at the boundary 
of our known system after several million years, he also makes 
the possible existence of such forces an alternative to hold such 
star within the bounds of our system as against that of con- 
tinuing "straight forward forever." Indeed, as we elsewhere 
prove, all the motions in the universe must necessarily come 
from initial motions or position of potential, from the potential- 
ity of forces impressed upon it by an external transcendent 
Power. But it is not necessary here further to discuss this 
phase of the subject. 

Let us now consider Newcomb's calculation apart from the 
consideration of any original or initial imposed force or power. 
He based his calculation upon the estimate of 100,000,000 stars, 
averaging five times the mass of our sun, and a galajctic diam- 
eter of 30,000 light years (radius of 15,000 light years). 
In the light of more recent data it will be seen that his critical 
velocity of twenty-five miles a second is very much too low. 
'If the number of stars in the actual universe would be the 
same as that in Newcomb's assumed universe, the radii of 
the two universes in terms of their respective star distances (if 
equal in both) would be the same. But, as Newcomb's as- 
sumed universe-radius (15,000 light years) is approximately 
three times the probable radius (5,000 light years), as pointed 
out above, the average distance between the stars in the actual 
universe would be about one-third as great as in Newcomb's 
assumed universe. 

The above, however, assumes the number of stars in the 
actual universe to be the same as that in Newcomb's assumed 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 123 

universe (100,000,000). But, as we have already shown, the 
probable number of stars, not even considering dark bodies, is 
about 1,000,000,000, or about ten times as great. Hence, by 
the principle indicated before, the distance between the stars 
would be only -r-r — ? or about — ^, as great as in our former 
case with 100,000,000 stars. Therefore, the probable distance 
between the stars of the actual universe (radius 5,000 light 
years, and number of stars 1,000,000,000), would be about 
~— of \, or g^, of that of Newcomb's assumed urxiverse 
(radius 15,000 light years, and number of stars 100,000,000). 
The above is, of course, based upon an average uniform density 
of distribution, etc. Hence, as gravitation varies inversely as 
the squares of the separating distances, the probable gravita- 
tion between the stars, if equal in size, would be the square of 
6.45, or 41.6025, times as great in the actual universe as in 
Newcomb's assumed universe; and so of gravitation in the 
aggregate, as could readily be shown. Thus, this far greater 
density of distribution would be a very important factor in a 
star's velocity, and all the more so, away from the universe- 
center and within its bounds. 

It is true that "to give eight times the velocity [of twenty- 
five miles a second] would require sixty-four times the at- 
tracting mass" of the stars, according to Newcomb's calcula- 
tion. But the actual aggregate mass of the stars is undoubtedly 
very much greater than Newcomb's assumed mass. He as- 
sumed his 100,000,000 stars indeed to average five times the 
mass of our sun (exclusive of planets) ; and this is probably 
considerably greater than the actual mass of the stars. But, 
even assuming the actual average mass of the stars to be only 
half that of our sun, even then the 1,000,000,000 stars would 
be equal in mass to the combined star-mass of Newcomb's 
figures. In a general way, it might then be said that the ques- 
tion of star-mass might almost be eliminated as a factor in our 
problem of approximate aggregate gravitation for a star sup- 
posedly coming from an infinite distance (the gravitation be- 
tween individual stars, due to the mass-factor, being, upon 
this supposition, however, much less than in Newcomb's cal- 
culation). But, even eliminating the mass-factor, gravitation 
within the universe, upon the basis of actual distribution, would 



124 Creation Ex Nihilo 

be very much greater than upon Newcomb's assumed data. 
However, this gravitation w^ould be considerably increased by 
the probably much greater average mass of the stars than that 
we assumed above, as well as by the possible number of dark 
bodies, whether stellar or planetary. As gravitation varies 
directly as the product of the masses, this greater average mass 
of the stars would, however, also greatly increase the relative 
gravitation between any two stars. 

It might be said that, if the average star-mass were only as 
large as that of our sun, the gravitation between individual 
stars within our system would be four times as great from the 
mass-factor alone as if it were only half as great. And, upon 
this basis (1,000,000,000 stars, each as large as our sun), the 
universe-gravitation for a body approaching it from a sup- 
posedly infinite distance^ or from an ulterior system, would be 
twice that of Newcomb's data (100,000,000 stars, each five 
times as large as our sun). 

This greater attraction due to the undoubtedly greater ag- 
gregate mass of the universe, added to the far greater attrac- 
tion due to the far greater density of star-distribution, than in 
Newcomb's assumed universe, would give us the equivalent of 
an attraction, within our universe bounds, greater than New- 
comb's calculated amount of "sixty-four times the attracting 
mass" of his assumed universe, necessary to hold such a sup- 
posed runaway star from passing out of our stellar system. 

Thus, surely, the velocities of Arcturus and 1830 Groom- 
bridge afford no evidence that these stars came from, and are 
bound for, space beyond the confines of the universe we know, 
whether from a supposed infinity of space or merely from somxC 
ulterior system. Other and more recent data thus make such 
velocities within, and confined to, our system, easily possible. 
These velocities should, therefore, afford no suggestion for a 
supposedly possible infinite universe. 

An interesting calculation as to the extent and density of 
distribution of the stars, based upon the law of gravitation as 
the cause of stellar motions, was given by Lord Kelvin in the 
Philosophical Magazine, January, 1902. He showed that, in 
a universe with a radius of 3.09 X 10^® kilometers, or nearly 
3,300 light years, with matter equivalent to 1 ,000,000,000 
times the mass of our sun, uniformly or proportionately distrib- 
uted throughout its extent, a stellar velocity of 108 kilometers 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 125 

(about 67 miles) per second, in the case of a body originally at 
rest at the outer surface, would result from gravitation after a 
lapse of 25,000,000 years. Hence, in the case of a universe of 
1,000,000,000 suns, originally at rest, and uniformly distrib- 
uted, after 25,000,000 years many of them would now have a 
velocity of from 20 to 30 kilometers (12.4 to 18.6 miles) per 
second, while some would have as high as 108 kilometers a 
second. Or, if thousands of millions of years ago they would 
have been so distributed as now to be equally spaced through- 
out the supposed sphere, their mean velocities would now be 
about 50 kilometers (about 31 miles) a second. And, as this 
virtually corresponds to fact, this learned investigator concluded 
that there are perhaps 1,000,000,000 stars within a radial dis- 
tance of about 3.09 X 10^^ kilometers. Moreover, from the 
fact that if there were 10,000,000,000 stars within the same 
space the mean velocities would be much greater than those 
actually known, he concluded that the number of stars must 
be a great deal less than that number. 

This calculation thus affords us another bit of evidence 
against the theory that the known velocity of any star indicates 
that it might have come from and be bound for space beyond 
the bounds of the stellar universe we know, especially upon 
the data we have given above, and making due allowance for 
dark bodies. Of course, as the stars are not distributed with 
entire uniformity, velocities more than the above average w^ould 
result in the denser portions of the universe; and velocities 
less than this average in the portions less dense, upon the as- 
sumed basis of this calculation. 

Moreover, if the extent of the universe of stars were as- 
sumed to be greater and the number of stars proportionally 
more numerous, or if its duration of existence had been longer, 
than the assumed figures above, this supposed gravitational 
velocity would necessarily have to be very much greater. But, 
as no such greater stellar velocities are known, it would be 
evident that, upon such a basis of reasoning, either the extent 
of the universe and its apparent cosmical age should approxi- 
mately correspond to these assumed figures; or that if the ex- 
tent were greater the age should be less, or vice versa. And, 
indeed, the age or life of a star or sun has variously been esti- 
mated to range from 20 to 100 million years. And, in what 
is to follow, we hope to show that the extent of the universe 



126 Creation Ex Nihilo 

also nearly matches the above figures. From this evidence it is 
thus readily seen that the starry universe is, almost without 
the shadow of a doubt, limited both as to space and as to time, 
or in other words, that it is both finite and temporal. 

Thus the very existence of finite velocities of the stars is an 
evidence that the universe must not only be finite as to space, 
but also as to time. A universe eternal in duration, as also one 
infinite in extent of space, should have developed infinite veloc- 
ities (if such there could be). Of course, from points already 
made, finiteness in space necessarily implies finiteness in time. 
Hence, from any proof of the finiteness of the universe as to 
space its finiteness as to time must necessarily follow. But, 
not only for the reason here given, but also for a reason 
previously given, the universe, it would seem, must be finite 
as to space; namely, because even any velocities or motions 
imply finiteness. Hence, as the universe must be finite as to 
space, according to this line of reasoning, so also must it be 
finite as to time, or temporal. Therefore, we have added an- 
other line of evidence that this finite temporal universe must 
have been created. 

V EVIDENCE OF FINITENESS IN THE AGGRE- 
GATE LIGHT OF THE STARS 

We come now to the development of a point which has to 
some extent also been treated by several writers, and notably 
by Lord Kelvin and Simon Newcomb. It is that of the 
amount of light received from the stars. 

In an address before the British Association at Glasgow, 
1 901, by a line of reasoning based upon the actual amount of 
light received from the stars. Lord Kelvin gave it as his 
definite conviction that the starry universe cannot be infinite. 

So Newcomb held that if the universe of stars were infinite, 
the "whole heavens would be filled with a blaze of light as 
bright as the sun" {The StarSj p. 230). The very fact that 
such is not the case, he held as manifest negative proof that it 
is not infinite. On the next page, referring to this evidence 
from the light received from the stars, he says, "The evidence 
seems to be against the hypothesis that the stars we see form 
part of an infinitely extended universe" (Ibid. p. 231). Prof. 
Newcomb thus came to the definite conclusion, based upon a 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 127 

simple mathematical induction, that, as the whole heavens are 
not filled with a blaze of light as bright as the sun, the number 
and distribution of stars cannot be infinite. 

The principle involved in this evidence for a limited universe 
from the amount of light received from the stars, was also 
recognized by A. Cowper Ranyard, the editor of Proctor's last 
work, Old and New Astronomy y 1892, as witness the follow- 
ing words: "If we reject as abhorrent to our minds the sup- 
position that the universe is not infinite, we are thrown back 
on one of two alternatives — either the ether which transmits 
the light of the stars to us is not perfectly elastic, or a large 
proportion of the light of the stars is obliterated by dark 
bodies" (p. 690, Ranyard's addition). 

It would, of course, only naturally follow that an infinite 
number of stars — if we could speak of such — would give forth 
an infinite quantity of light. But it might be contended that 
this would not prove the light at any one point, or to any one 
body like our earth, to be infinite. It would, however, prove 
an infinite amount of light distributed through an infinite ex- 
tent of space. All it might be contended, therefore, actually 
to prove is that that light would be uniformly distributed up 
and down the realms of an endless space. But as to its actual 
intensity on any one body, that would be another question. At 
any rate, one star at an infinite distance — if such there were — 
would give no light at infinity. The variation of the light 
being inversely as the square of the distance, it would follow 
that, as the square of an infinite distance is necessarily infinite, 
the inverse ratio would be one divided by infinity. And, as this 
would in effect be nothing, the light of that star at an infinite 
distance would be truly infinitesimal; that is, it would be 
nothing. Now, as to the intervening stars, or the stars be- 
tween these two supposed infinities — that of a star and that of 
its supposed observer — if one could speak of intervening stars 
between two infinities, the question of the accumulated in- 
tensity of light would again be a complex one. But this con- 
tention, upon its premises, is undoubtedly correct for all prac- 
tical reasoning. 

Indeed, this argument proves far more than appears upon 
its face. It is indeed true that, if the number of stars were 
infinite, the whole heavens would thus necessarily have to be 
one blaze of light. And, of course, an infinite number of stars 



128 Creation Ex Nihilo 

would have to be distributed over, or extended through, an 
infinite space. But the number of stars and the space of their 
distribution w^ould not need to be infinite In order to cause 
the heavens to shine vi^ith the brightness of the sun. For the 
universe to blaze M^ith the brightness of our sun, all that would 
be necessary would be to have the number of stars so great 
and so distributed as completely to fill, by their projections 
upon it, the apparent surface of the whole celestial sphere with 
stars. And this would be the case when every line of vision 
from the observer outward would meet with, or be intercepted 
by, some star, either comparatively near or remote. Thus all 
the stars, of various distances, would seem to be projected 
upon, and completely cover for the observer, the inner surface 
of the imaginary sphere that marks the outermost stars. And, 
the stars, by such an ideal arrangement, would not need even 
to be equal to the number necessary actually to cover the whole 
surface of that supposed outer sphere. The nearer stars would, 
to the observer, cover far more than the actual area of their 
cross-sections, projected upon that spherical background — and 
this, of course, inversely In proportion to the squares of their 
distances from the observer. 



I EXTENT OF UNIVERSE FOR NUMBER OF STARS TO BE EQUAL 
TO NUMBER OF STAR CROSS-SECTIONS IN SURFACE OF 
BOUNDING SPHERE 

Let us now suppose the stars to be equally distributed accord- 
ing to a ratio of distribution (near our system) we have al- 
ready noted; namely, 30 to 40 stars to a spherical space having 
a radius of 5 parsecs, or say, one star for every space equiva- 
lent to a sphere with a radius of about 300,000 times our 
distance from the sun. Such a star-density would, however, 
be somewhat greater than Is the case. Upon this basis it would 
require far less than infinite space to contain a number of stars 
so great as to be equal to the number needed completely to 
cover the Inner surface of that far-off sphere that would mark 
the last outposts of such a starry universe. And that number 
of stars would also be far from infinite. Such a sphere-surface 
covered with stars would, of course, also present a solid wall 
of light, each point as brilliant as each individual star or sun. 
And, then, what of the effect of the aggregate light upon the 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 129 

individual observer! 

We have said that the number of stars for a universe under 
such conditions of distribution, either only apparently to cover 
the vi^hole heavens or to be actually equal to the number that 
could be placed upon its outer sphere, v^^ould in either case be 
far from infinite, and that the space of their distribution v^^ould 
also be far from infinite. What, then, v^^ould have to be that 
number and the bounds of that universe? Let us, then, de- 
termine the number of stars of a universe so great that that 
number v^ould be equal to the number required actually even 
to cover the vi^hole surface of its outermost containing sphere. 

Let us novi^ conceive space to be divided into concentric 
spheres, w^ith our sun at their common centre. And let the 
first sphere have a radius of 300,000 times our distance from 
the sun. Then, let the radius of the second sphere be twice that 
radius; that of the third sphere, three times that radius; and 
so on indefinitely. 

As already noted, accepting the average density of distribu- 
tion of stars, as far as determined, there w^ould approximately 
be one star for v^^hat v^e shall call a star-space unit; namely, a 
sphere w^ith a radius of 300,000 times our distance from the 
sun. It should be noted here, however, that in case of our 
central or initial sphere, there M^ould be tv^^o stars, our ov^^n sun 
at the centre and alpha Centauri not very far from its surface. 
This star is somewhat less than the assumed radius of the first 
sphere away from us, its distance being only about four light 
years, as against approximately five light years of the radius of 
this first sphere. But this does not affect our argument, as 
we are assuming a uniform density of distribution, upon the 
basis of the ascertained average, given above. We might al- 
most have taken the distance of our first neighbor alpha Cen- 
tauri — somewhat above twenty trillion miles distant — as the 
radius for this star-space unit, which would probably make 
allowance for an underestimation of the number of fainter 
stars, and for the greater density in the Milky Way' wreath. 
But, as already noted, beyond the locus of the Milky Way 
wreath of stars the density of stars apparently becomes less and 
less with the distance outward. We shall, in these calcula- 
tions, therefore, use the radius of star-space unit indicated; 
namely, 300,000 times our distance from the sun. But, for 
that matter, whatever radius we should assume as the basis of 



I30 Creation Ex Nihilo 

our calculations, it would equally prove our point; namely, 
that the universe of stars is finite, both as to number of stars 
and as to space of distribution. And this Is equally true of 
other assumed data to be used below. 

Now, upon the basis of a uniform distribution of stars 
throughout space, the numbers of stars for successive spheres 
(inclusive of stars in preceding spheres) would Increase as the 
cubes of their like dimensions. But the surfaces of these 
spheres would Increase only as the squares of their like dimen- 
sions. Therefore, as the spheres succeed one another, the num- 
bers of stars within the spheres would multiply much faster 
than the areas of the surfaces of the containing spheres. And, 
therefore, the total light effect would steadily increase as we 
should pass outward. And it would, of course, approach in- 
finity as our sphere would approach Infinity — if, indeed, we 
could speak of an Infinity of light and an infinity of space. 

We shall now assume the average radius of a star to be 
500,000 miles. And, as already noted, the average calculated 
distribution of stars Is approximately one star for a sphere with 
a radius of 300,000 times our distance from the sun. The 
radius of this one-star sphere would then be 300,000 times 
93,000,000, or 27,900,000,000,000, miles. 

Now let r = the radius of a star (500,000 miles), 
and a = the area of the cross-section of a star; 

then a = ^r^. 

So let R = the radius of a one-star sphere (27,900,- 

000,000,000 miles), 
and A = the area of the surface of a one-star sphere; 

then A = 47rR^ 

Again, let p = the number of star cross-sections in the 

surface of a one-star sphere; 

, 47rR2 

then p = ^, 

_4_R2 . 

Now, as already noted, the numbers of stars for successive 
spheres would vary as the cubes of their radii, and the sur- 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 13 1 

faces of those spheres would vary only as the squares of their 
radii. Therefore, the numbers of the contained stars would 
vary faster than the containing sphere-surfaces (or star cross- 
sections upon them) directly as the radii. But, upon our 
basis of reasoning, a one-star sphere would contain only one 
star. Therefore, this star, if placed upon the surface of its 
sphere (which would, however, not be the case in a uniform 
distribution), would occupy one star cross-section upon it. 
But completely to cover an outer sphere with the projections 
upon it of the star cross-sections of a one-star sphere, would 
require all its star cross-sections. But we have seen that the 

surface of a one-star sphere would contain ^—r- star cross- 

sections (or, ^-^ times as many as the number of stars — 

which is one — upon its surface) to be projected. Hence, ac- 
cording to the above law of increase for successive spheres, a 
sphere whose surface would be completely covered with the 
projections of a one-star sphere's star cross-sections upon it — 
upon the basis of a uniform density of stars, etc. — would have 

to have a radius equal to ^-^ times that of a one-star sphere. 

This radius would, therefore, be ^-j- X R> or ^-^ (by 

substituting values of R and r, we could directly get universe- 
radius in miles). 

Now, let R' = the radius of a universe-sphere, such 
that the area of surface in star cross-sections would be equal 
to the number of stars within it, 

A' = the area of the surface of this universe-sphere, 
and p' = the number of star cross-sections in this uni- 
verse-sphere; 
then A' - 47rR'2. 

Substituting ^-^ for R', 



647rR« 
4^1"^]* or -^. 



m. 



132 Creation Ex Nihilo 

But Trr^ = the area of a star cross-section, 

^i^' 64.R6 
therefore p' = r^ , or -^ (star cross-sections in the 

7rr2 ^ 

surface of universe-sphere) . 
Substituting values of R and r (27,900,000,000,000 and 
500,000), 

, _ 64 X 27,900,000,000,000^ 
~ 500,000^ ' 

^ 64 X (279 X io^^)« 
(5 X io^)« ' 
^ 64 X 471,655,843,734,321 X lo^g 

1252 X lo^o 
= 1,931.902,335,935,778,816 X lo^o (the number 
of star cross-sections on universe-sphere) . 

But the number of star cross-sections (p') on the surface 
of the universe-sphere, in this case, is equal to the number of 
stars in this ideally star-distributed universe. Hence, a uni- 
verse whose number of stars would be equal to the number of 
stars necessary completely to cover its outer surface (p') upon 
the ideal basis of an equal distribution throughout, with one 
star for every star-space unit having a radius of 300,000 
times our distance from the sun, would contain 1,931,902,- 
335,935,778,816X10^° stars. 

But our proposition calls for one star upon the surface of 
the first or initial sphere, with uniform equivalent density 
throughout. Therefore, as similar dimensions' of similar vol- 
umes are to each other as the cube roots of their volumes, it 
follows that the universe-radius (R') would be ^^/ 1,9^1,902, - 

335^935^778^816X10^, or I,245,456XIO^^ times the radius 
(R) of a one-star sphere. But, as R is equal to 279X10^^ 
miles, this universe-radius would be equal to 347,482,224X 
10^^ miles, equivalent to about 59,182X10^^ light years. 

This universe-radius may also be deduced from the sur- 
face area. 

This number is then the radius (R') of a universe-sphere 
whose number of stars would be equal to the number of star 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 133 

cross-sections (p') upon its sphere-surface, upon the basis of an 
equal distribution of its stars, with one star for every star- 
space unit having a radius of 300,000 times our distance from 
the sun. That is, the surface of the containing sphere, or 
of the sphere marking the outermost stars of such a universe, 
would be 347,482, 224X10^^ miles, or about 59,182X10^^ 
light years, distant from our sun — or 1,245,456X10^'' times the 

4R2 
radius (R) of a one-star sphere (or ^-^ X R). 



We may also briefly state another very simple method of 
determining the above facts. 

Let n be the number of concentric spheres of this imaginary 
universe of stars. As the areas of the surfaces of the succes- 
sive concentric spheres vary as the squares of their radii, the 
numbers of star cross-sections must vary as the squares of 
the successive sphere-numbers. Hence, one star upon the sur- 
face of a one-star sphere would cover n^ star cross-sections 
upon the ;zth. sphere. And, to cover all the star cross-sections 
in the surface of the nth. sphere, it would require an equiva- 
lent of the projections of all the star cross-sections upon the 
one-star, or first-star, sphere. Therefore, the number of star 
cross-sections upon the surface of the ;zth. sphere would be 
the number of star cross-sections upon the surface of the first, 
or one-star, sphere, times «^. But, the number of star cross- 
sections in the surface of a one-star sphere is — — r- (as al- 

Trr^ 

4R^ 
ready determined), or ^—^^ R being the radius of this one- 
star sphere and r that of a star. Hence, the number of star 
cross-sections (p') in the surface of the ;zth. sphere would 

be i^\ 

r^ 



Thus p' = ^-^ 



But, as there is one star for the first sphere, and as the 
numbers of stars vary with the cubes of the like dimensions, 
in a sphere with a radius n times as great there would be n^ 



134 Creation Ex Nihilo 

stars. But, by the conditions of our problem, this number 
(n^) of stars Is to be the same as the number of star cross- 
sections (p') in the surface of the outer sphere. 

Hence, n^ = p'. 

Substituting n^ for p' in our equation above, 

or n = ±^. 

Substituting values of R(279 X 10") and r(5 X 10^), 
4(279 X 10^^)^ 

= 1,245,456 X io^° (concentric spheres). 

But, as the distance between the concentric spheres is equal 
to R, or 279X10^^ miles, the universe-radius (R') would 
be equal to 347,482,224X10^^ miles. 

But the number of stars, by the conditions of our problem, 
would be n^ or (I,245,456XIO^^)^ or i,93i,902,335,935r 
778,8I6XIO^^ And as the number of stars (n^) is to be 
equal to the number of star cross-sections (pOj there would 
also be 1,931,902,335,935,778,816X10^^ star cross-sections. 

Or p' = - — g-, or^^. Substituting values of R' (as 

above) and r(5 X 10^), 
, _ 4(347>482,224 X 10^^)^ 
^ (5 X 10^)2 

= 1,931,902,335,935,778,816 X io^° (star cross-sec- 
tions). 

It should need no explanation or proof that, according to 
our theorem, the number of stars In such a universe-sphere, 
upon our basis of distribution, would be thus equal to the 
number of star cross-sections in its surface area. But an 
additional paragraph will make our point still more clear, 
while It will also definitely verify our conclusions. 

We found the radius (R') of this universe-sphere to b& 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 135 

^-TT- . That is, it would have a radius of ^-^ times that 
r r^ 

(R) of a single-star (or one-star) sphere. And, as the 

numbers of stars (s' and s) in these spheres would be to each 

other as the cubes of their like dimensions, a sphere with a 

4.R^ 

radius of ^-^ times that (R) of a one-star sphere would con- 

tarn ( -^ ) times one star, or ^ ^ stars, which, as 

noted above, is also the number of star cross-sections (p') ini 
the surface of said sphere — the thing to be proved. 

Or V':V:: ('^y : R^ 
But s':s::V':V. 
Therefore, s' : s :: (2") • ^^' 



64R' 
or s : s :: —V" : !• 

But s = i; 

T 1_ 
r« 



therefore, s' : i :: -^ : i; 



or s' = \ . And this again is the number of star 

cross-sections (p') in the surface of the universe-sphere, as 
it has to be, according to our proposition. 

The distance to the surface of that containing universe 
would thus be 347,482,224X10^^ miles, or 59,182X10^^ light 
years. And yet, while this distance would be inconceivably 
great, it would nevertheless not be infinite. 

This would also rather imply, that, if the universe were that 
great in extent of space, it would also supposedly have to be 
at least that old in years of duration in time. For, if the light 
of the star-outposts were visible in this aggregation of star 
light, as we have shown, it would have required that many 
years to travel that distance. And therefore, if seen, we should 
see that light of those stars as they shone that many years ago. 



136 Creation Ex Nihilo 

But that is no more an infinity of time than the extent of 
space is an infinity of space. Nor, even if they had existed 
long enough for their light to have made its journey a multi- 
tude of times, would even that be an eternity of time, any 
more than that extent in space, multiplied by any number what- 
soever, would make an infinity of space. 

If it would be contended that the distribution of stars 
throughout space is denser than our assumption, we should 
answer that the greater the average distribution of stars, the 
lesser in extent would the universe have to be thus to blaze 
with light, upon the basis of a uniform distribution. And, 
even if their average distribution were less dense and their 
average size smaller, this would only extend the bounds of 
the universe; but upon no assumption whatever would it need 
to be infinite in order thus to blaze like a solid sun-studded 
sphere. 

We are, of course, aware of the fact that in a universe of 
ideally uniformly distributed stars, such as we assumed, the 
stars would not really be thus upon the surfaces of the suc- 
cessive spheres. If that were so, the stars upon the same sur- 
faces of successive spheres would be nearer together than we 
assumed and those upon different succeeding surfaces would 
be farther apart than those upon the same surface. And this 
fact must also be borne in mind in the calculations that are to 
follow. However, in such a case approximation is exact 
enough. Nor would any other arrangement very materially 
alter our conclusions. Hence, we are assuming such a some- 
what abnormal arrangement in the interests of clearness and 
greater simplicity. 

2 APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF UNIVERSE FOR STARS (DENSITY 

AS IN KNOWN universe), WITHOUT OCCULTATIONS, 

COMPLETELY TO COVER CELESTIAL SPHERE 

According to the above calculation, the number of stars in 
our imaginary universe would be equal to the number of star 
cross-sections in its outer surface. But, in order to have the 
whole heavens blaze like a solid wall of light, only every line 
of vision would need to be met by some star. Now, according 
to our arrangement above, there would be i star for the first 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 137 

sphere with a radius equal to 300,000 times the distance of our 
sun from us; 8 stars (inclusive of the star in the first sphere) 
for the second sphere, with radius twdce as great; 27 stars for 
the third sphere, etc. That is, if we assumed all the stars to 
be located upon the successive sphere-surfaces (which could 
not be the case, as already pointed out), there would be i 
star upon the surface of the first sphere, 7 stars (8-1) upon 
the surface of the second sphere, 19 stars (27-8) upon the 
surface of the third sphere, 37 stars (64-27) upon the surface 
of the fourth sphere, 61 stars (5^-4^) upon the surface of the 
fifth sphere, . . . 30,301 stars (lOi^-ioo^) upon the surface 
of the loist. sphere, . . . 3,003,001 stars (looi^-iooo^) upon 
the surface of the looist. sphere, etc. 

Again, at the second sphere-surface i star will give \ as 
much light as i star upon the surface of the first sphere. That 
is, one star cross-section upon the surface of the second sphere 
would be equivalent to one-fourth of a star cross-section upon 
the surface of the first sphere. But, as noted above, there 
would be 7 stars upon the surface of our second sphere. Hence, 
those 7 stars upon the surface of our second sphere would be 
equivalent to f stars upon the surface of the first sphere. 
So, I star upon the surface of the third sphere would be equiva- 
lent to ^ of a star upon the surface of the first sphere; and 
the 19 stars upon the surface of the third sphere would be 
equivalent to ^- stars upon the surface of the first sphere. 
So, one star upon the surface of the loist. sphere would be 

equivalent to ■ ^ of a star upon the surface of the first 

sphere; and the 30,301 stars upon the surface of the loist. 
sphere would be equivalent to f^^, or 2.97-f-, stars upon the 
surface of the first sphere. Likewise, one star upon the sur- 
face of the 1 00 1 St. sphere would be equivalent to -_ 

lOOI^ 

of a star upon the surface of the first sphere; and the 3,003,001 
stars upon the surface of the lOOist. sphere would be equiva- 
lent to 3^003^001 ^^ 2. 99 7-1- , stars upon the surface of the 

1,002,001' -y ^ I 1 7 r 

first sphere. The stars upon the io,ooist. sphere would be 
equivalent to 2.9997-l-stars; and for successive spheres, 2.99997, 
2.999997, 2.9999997, etc., stars. 



138 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Thus, according to our assumed distribution of stars, the 
stars upon the surface of the second sphere would be equiva- 
lent to ^ stars upon that of the first sphere; those upon the 
third sphere would be equivalent to ^- stars upon the first 
sphere; and for successive spheres, the number of stars would 
constantly approach the limit of an equivalent of 3 stars upon 
the first sphere, as, for example, 2.97 for the lOist. sphere, 
2.997 for the looist. sphere, etc. Or, as we are here con- 
sidering a universe of stars with an almost inconceivable num- 
ber of concentric sphere-surfaces, and as the numbers of stars 
upon the successive sphere-surfaces approach ever nearer to an 
equivalent of 3 stars upon the surface of the first sphere, we 
might say, as a close approximation to the actual facts of such 
an ideal universe, that every concentric sphere-surface would 
add an equivalent of 3 stars upon the surface of the first sphere. 

Let us now assume the stars to be distributed in every 
direction in such a way as to have each star appear as a star- 
projection upon the celestial sphere, that is, without any star- 
occultations. Then, for the whole heavens to blaze with light 
at every point like the sun, there would have to be only enough 
successive sphere-surfaces to make an equivalent, by their addi- 
tions of stars, to cover the whole surface of the first sphere. 
But the surface of the first sphere in star cross-sections, as 

already determined, is — ^, R being the radius of the first 

sphere (279X10") and r the radius of a star (5X10''). 
Hence, if each successive sphere-surface would add an equiva- 
lent of 3 stars (or star cross-sections) upon the surface of the 
first sphere, the number (n) of successive sphere-surfaces to 
make an addition of stars equivalent to cover the whole sur- 
face of the first sphere would have to be one-third as many as 
that of the star cross-sections upon the first sphere. 

Thus, n=i of 151. 

Substituting values of R(279Xio") and r(5Xio'') in 
this equation, 

n = i X ^(g^^^J°"^' = 415,152 X 10" (concentric 

Spheres). 

Hence, if the stars were so distributed as not to occult one 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 139 

another, for the whole heavens to blaze with light like that of 
the sun, the universe would have to extend approximately 
only one-third as far as in our former calculation. Or there 
would have to be only about one twenty-seventh as many stars, 
while the number of star cross-sections in its outer surface 
would be only about one-ninth as great, as in our first imag- 
inary universe, with stars equal to the number of star cross- 
sections in its outer sphere. 

Our former calculation, under ideal conditions would, there- 
fore, allow for the occultation of all the stars beyond one- 
third of the distance toward the surface of the containing uni- 
verse-sphere. That is, upon such ideal conditions, there could 
be 26 occulted stars to every unocculted (or occulting) star. 
Or there would be 26 times as many stars occulted as un- 
occulted. Thus, there could be even a considerable promis- 
cuous or haphazard arrangement of the stars, within our former 
universe boundary — as long as the approximate average density 
would remain the same — and still leave enough stars unocculted 
to cover the celestial sphere and therefore to cause it to blaze 
with light like that of our sun. And, indeed, with almost 
any such promiscuous arrangement conceivable, the heavens 
would necessarily have to blaze well-nigh at least like a solid 
wall of light. 

3 NO INFINITE EXTENT OF UNFV^ERSE THUS NECESSARY 
UNDER ANY CONDITION OF DISTRIBUTION 

If now, however, we should extend the universe-bounds so 
as to have a radius ten times as great as in our first imaginary 
universe above — 10 times 1,245,456X10^° concentric sphere- 
surfaces, 279X10^^ miles apart — we should have a universe 
with the number of stars 10^ X 3^, oi" 27,000, times as many as 
would be necessaiy, under our more ideal arrangement (with- 
out occultations), to cause the heavens at every point to blaze 
like the sun. This, surely, would be a sufficient number of 
stars, with almost any conceivable arrangement of them, thus 
to blaze. With almost any distribution, only retaining our 
approximate average density, there would be thousands of stars 
occulted for tv^vy unocculted star and still leave the celestial 
sphere entirely covered with stars like one solid sun. 

But even such a universe of stars, it is needless to say, 



I40 Creation Ex Nihilo 

would not be infinite either in extent of space or in its number 
of stars. Much less so would the universe of our first — or of 
our second — calculation above be infinite either in space, matter, 
or its number of stars. And, in order to make every allowance 
for any promiscuous arrangement of stars, for any multiplicity 
of occultations, our imaginary universe might be conceived of 
as extending any number of times the distance we arrived at 
above; and even then it would still continue to remain finite, 
however far supposedly extended. 

Under any such circumstances, the number of stars not 
eclipsed would always remain very many times less than the 
number thus eclipsed. Nevertheless, the number of stars 
eclipsed could not be infinite as against the number not eclipsed, 
as it would be less than the total number of stars. And, of 
course, the number of stars not eclipsed would be finite. Hence, 
the number of stars eclipsed (finite) plus the number not 
eclipsed (finite), or the total number of stars, could not be 
infinite, as no two finites could together constitute an infinite. 
Hence, also, there could be no infinite extension of the uni- 
verse. Our contention, therefore, is that even a distribution of 
stars, such as we actually know, would not require an infinite 
extension of the universe to make the heavens blaze like a 
solid wall of light. With the stars arranged as we know 
them, the universe should not need to extend much beyond 
the bounds of our first imaginary universe, with the number of 
stars equal to that of star cross-sections in its containing sphere- 
surface, thus to blaze with light. And, it should, surely, not 
extend beyond the bounds ten times as far extended, as above 
noted. And, at least long before bounds a hundred times as 
distant would be reached, the universe would necessarily blaze 
like the sun at every point and thus still remain finite. 

But, needless to say, we do not actually receive any such 
amount of light from the stars. This assumed amount is to 
that of the light actually received somewhat like that of the 
sun to that of even a very faint telescopic star, which can only 
feebly tremble into visibility through a mighty telescope. This 
fact surely reduces the actual universe almost to an atom com- 
pared with our imaginary universe, and especially when com- 
pared with that of our former calculation, almost necessarily 
blazing like a sun-studded sphere. And, if even such an imag- 
inary universe would not be infinite, it surely should not need 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 141 

any further argument to prove the actual universe finite — 
especially in the light of the amount of light actually received 
from its aggregation of stars. 



4 ACTUAL AND COMPARATIVE AMOUNT OF LIGHT RECEIVED 
FROM ALL THE STARS 

It will now be in order to take a comparative measure of 
the extent of the universe from the actual amount of light 
received from both its visible and invisible stars. 

By a calculation based upon carefully ascertained data, 
Simon Newcomb placed the total amount of light received 

from all the stars at about ^ the amount received 

90,000,000 

from our sun alone. And, of this light, according to an estimate 
of Charles Young, only one twenty-fifth comes to us from stars 
visible to the naked eye (and even this relative amount has 
been found to be apparently much too great). Thus it would 
require 90,000,000 times the total light actually received from 
all the stars to be equivalent to that received from the sun. 

But our sun occupies only a small space or area against the 
surface of the celestial sphere. Let us now conceive of a 
sphere (which we shall call the solar-sphere) having its centre 
in the earth, with its surface passing through the sun. From 
this we can readily determine the number of such suns, at 
the same distance, that it would require completely to cover the 
heavens. 

Now let R=the radius of this apparent solar-sphere 
(93,000,000 miles), 
r=:the radius of the sun (433,250 miles), 
A=:the area of this apparent solar-sphere, 
and a=the area of the sun's cross-section. 
Then A=:47rRS 
and a= 7rr^. 
Now let c=the number of cross-sections of the sun in the 
area of this apparent solar-sphere; 
_ 47rR^ 



then 



__4R^ 



142 Creation Ex Nihi!o 

Substituting values of R (93,000,000 miles) and r (433,250 
miles), 

_ 4 (93,000,000)^ 
^~ 433,2502 ' 
= 184,310 (nearly), the number of solar cross-sections in 
the solar-sphere. 

That is, it would require 184,310 suns like our own, and 
at the same distance, completely to cover the heavens like a 
solid wall or vault of light — and, therefore, to blaze with light 
like that of the direct blaze of the sun. Hence, for the whole 
heavens to be ablaze with light like that of the sun, it would re- 
quire 184,310X90,000,000, or 16,587,900,000,000, times the 
light actually received from all the stars visible and invisible. 

Let us now assume the actual number of stars in the known 
universe to be 1,000,000,000, as a close approximation to the 
estimated number. It would then require 16,587,900,000,000 
X 1 ,000,000,000, or 165,879X10^'', stars, promiscuously ar- 
ranged in 1,000,000,000 star-groups of 16,587,900,000,000 
stars each and confined within the bounds of the known uni- 
verse with a radius of approximately 5,000 light years, to blaze 
at every point like the sun. That is, in each case where before 
there was one star, there would now be 16,587,900,000,000 
stars like itself. Or, in other words, there would be 1,000,- 
000,000 star-groups of 16,587,900,000,000 stars each, the star- 
groups being distributed exactly as are the single stars now. 
Thus this multiplied number of stars would be such as to be 
equivalent to having approximately 16,587,900,000,000 stars 
(instead of one) upon the first star-sphere with radius of 300,- 
000 times our distance from the sun. 

Now, as these star-groups take the places of single stars in 
a former similar calculation, we can here treat them as though 
they were single stars with an intensity of light 16,587,900,- 
000,000 times as great as that of a single star before the multi- 
plied increase. And, as they displace 1,000,000,000 stars ap- 
proximately so uniformly distributed as to have one star upon 
the first concentric sphere-surface, there must be 1,000 such 
concentric sphere-surfaces. But as the stars (single stars 
instead of star-groups) upon each of the successive spherical 
shells would be equivalent to approximately three stars upon 
the initial sphere-surface, the stars (single stars instead of star- 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 143 

groups) of the 1,000 spherical shells would be equivalent to 
approximately 3,000 stars upon that first sphere-surface. Hence, 
as single stars are here displaced by star-groups of 16,587,900,- 
000,000 stars each, or as there would be 16,587,900,000,000 
stars (instead of one) upon the initial sphere-surface, all these 
star-groups for the 1,000 spherical shells would be equivalent to 
16,587,900,000,000 X 3>ooo stars, or 49,763,700,000,000,000 
stars, upon the first sphere. Therefore, the 1 6,587,900,000,000 X 
1,000,000,000, or 165,879 X 10^^, stars (causing all heaven 
to blaze like the sun), distributed in star-groups, as indicated, 
and confined within the bounds of the known universe of ap- 
proximately 5,000 light years, would give a light-equivalence 
of 497,637 X 10^^ stars upon the first star sphere-surface of 
300,000 times our distance from the sun. 

Now, as already noted, the approximate amount of light 
added by each of the successive spherical shells in a universe of 
ideally uniformly distributed stars, would be three times that 
of one star upon the first sphere-surface. But here we have an 
equivalent of 497,637 X 10^^ stars upon the first sphere-sur- 
face. Therefore, for stars, uniformly distributed so as to have 
one star upon the first sphere-surface, etc., to produce the same 
light-effect at the universe-centre — namely, to blaze at every 
point like the sun — as these 165,879 X 10^^ stars, distributed in 
star-groups and confined within the radius of 5,000 light years, 
it would require one third of 497,637 X 10^^, or 165,879 X 
10^^, concentric spheres. 

Therefore, the radius of this imaginary universe-sphere, de- 
termined from the actual amount of light received from the 
stars, would be approximately 165,879 X 10^^ times 279 X 
10^^ miles, or 46,280,241 X lO^^ miles, that is, 462,802,410 X 
10^^ miles. This is approximately 78,845 X lO^^ light years 
(about 157,690 X 10^ times the radius of the known universe). 
And the approximate number of stars would be (165,879 X 
Io")^ or 4,564,300,461,446,439 X I0^^ that is, 4,564,300,- 
461,446,439,000 X 10^^ 

Let us now go back to our first imaginary universe with the 
estimated density (in stars) of our galactic system, so extended 
as to cause all heaven to appear like a solid wall of light, or at 
least well-nigh so, even after making allowance for a consider- 
ably promiscuous arrangement with associated occultations. 



144 Creation Ex Nihilo 

We found that it would have a radius of 347,482,224 X lo^^ 
miles, or 59,182X10^^ light years (about 118,364X10^ 
times the calculated radius of the known universe), and that 
its approximate number of stars would be 1,931,902,335,935,- 
778,816 X 10^^ 

The closeness between these figures, or sets of figures, and 
the parallel ones arrived at above from the light of the stars 
in the known universe (the radii being as close to each other as 
3 to 4), is so remarkably striking as to need no comment. 
These two sets of figures so nearly match each other that if all 
the exact data — as to number of stars and total light of the sun 
and of the stars — could be determined, and if, instead of our 
theoretical ideal arrangement for easy computation, the calcu- 
lation could be based upon the actual distribution of stars, they 
would probably fully match each other — as indeed they should. 
And, for that matter, even if one or other of the factors should, 
by further investigation, be found to be larger than what we 
used in our calculations, it would undoubtedly also be found 
that some other factor or factors would be smaller than what 
we used. Thus one factor, by being smaller or larger, would 
probably compensate for any deviation from fact of any other 
factor or factors. It is thus seen that the remarkable closeness 
between these parallel figures indicates that the astronomical 
data — as to the extent (radius, about 5,000 light years) of our 
galactic universe and its number of stars ( i ,000,000,000) , etc. 
— used in our calculations, must closely match the actual facts 
of the universe, and that to a great degree astronomy is truly an 
exact science. 

Hence, these facts of our latter calculation from the 
actual amount of light received from sun and stars, add their 
tremendous weight of evidence to our contention ; namely, that 
the actual universe of stars is not only finite, but that it is 
measurably so. These facts should, therefore, vastly strengthen 
our several arguments above for a very limited universe. These 
astonishing facts should also constitute an unanswerable evi- 
dence that at least comparatively very little, if any, light is 
lost by some hypothetical light interference in its transmission 
from very distant stars through the ether of space, except such 
as is intercepted by other large or small bodies in space — a 
quite recently developed objection, which we shall presently 
more fully answer. 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 145 

Though we should not anticipate the overwhelming con- 
clusion from the evidences for a finite universe, we may yet 
here say that, as they show the universe to be finite, they also 
imply that it must be temporal and that therefore it must 
have been created. And, needless to say, such creation must 
have been out of nothing by a transcendent supreme spiritual 
Personality. 



5 OBJECTION FROM HYPOTHETICAL LIGHT INTERFERENCE 

ANSWERED 

In his recent work, The Universe and the Atom, 191 6, Mr. 
Marion Erv^^in, C. E., has developed a theory of light inter- 
ference in its transmission through space, that, upon its sur- 
face, seems to have some foundation in the theory of light, if 
not in fact. But, this objection will be found to be far from 
a conclusive argument against the proof from the light of the 
stars, given above, for a finite universe. In fact, even if there 
were some direct interference of light, that would only push 
farther outward the confines of the universe. But it would 
not push them beyond even measurable distance. The rays 
interfered with or intercepted, instead of being lost altogether, 
would only, like a multiplicity of echoes, be reflected, or at least 
difEused; and thus, long before a limiting infinity would be 
reached, they should cause the whole heavens to blaze with light 
like that of the sun. But, of course, we could not even speak 
of a limiting infinity, as such phraseology would be self-con- 
tradictory. A supposed limiting infinity would necessarily 
imply bounds, and would therefore be a non-infinity. 

But, that the actual facts as to light transmission do by no 
means match Mr. Erwin's theory of interference, is only too 
manifest from what, in anticipation of this objection, was said 
above. This evidence against any such supposed considerable 
light interference, is very much strengthened by the fact of 
the actual addition of new stars with continued improvements 
in our optical instruments. And this is, of course, also evident 
from the great amount of light received from even invisible 
stars — at least 96% of the whole amount received from all 
the stars. Surely, if Mr. Erwin's theory of light interference 
were matched by fact, it should to a great extent apply already 
in the case of the first stars seen with the unaided eye, and 



146 Creation Ex Nihilo 

of course much more so before we should reach the ordinary 
telescopic stars, and surely altogether so before we should 
reach those distant stars that only faintly vibrate into visi- 
bility through the largest equatorial. But the fact that the 
light from even those far-oif telescopic points in space reaches 
us without any marked interference — not to speak of the fact 
that the sensitive plate of the camera reveals others still farther 
beyond — should be sufficient proof that light transmitted 
through the spaces of the ether, is, as has always been held, 
practically, and perhaps entirely, uninterfered with or un- 
hindered. 

That the light of the stars is not interfered with to any 
appreciable extent, if at all, is also evident from the fact that 
the light of even the very faint distant stars is transmitted 
through the ether as a compound of all the colors of the spec- 
trum. If there were interference, it would undoubtedly be 
of the nature of selective absorption of the light waves of dif- 
ferent lengths, a fact which would readily become apparent 
from the light-spectrum. This objection has therefore no valid- 
ity. 

VI THE AGGREGATION OF ANY INDEFINITE 
NUMBER OF SO-CALLED UNIVERSES ALSO 
FINITE 

In order to offset the force of this cumulative, and what 
should be an altogether convincing, argument, that the physi- 
cal universe is finite, it may be contended that it refers and 
applies only to one stellar system, or to a continuous system of 
stars. 

Thus men will insist, in spite of evidence to the contrary, 
that the universe is infinite. And the most popular argument 
resorted to as a final defense of their position, is that of a possi- 
bility of numberless stars or star-systems beyond our own galac- 
tic system. Thus Mr. Erwin says, "If we had only a one 
Galaxy system, and all the outside space be void, all the suns 
in that system would have long since radiated all their heat into 
space, and by loss of kinetic energy the entire system would 
be non-luminous and dead. If there are processes going on 
which will inevitably bring the entire physical universe to a 
kinetic death at some definite time in the future, since time in 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 147 

the past is unlimited, the human mind cannot escape the con- 
clusion that the death event should have happened long ago. 
Nor does it aid us to imagine a beginning of the process, unless 
WQ assume that w^e have under consideration only one system 
of a still larger universe, and that in this endless universe there 
is going on by operation of natural laws, an endless cycle of 
birth, life, death, and resurrection of systems. If one system 
is going to its death, as it must be, because of the gradual loss 
of kinetic energy through radiation out^^ard into space, there 
must be another system in process of building elsewhere" ( The 
Universe and the Atom, pp. 119-120). 

This is, of course, avowedly a development of Arrhenius's 
theory of repeating or successive universes, whose choice pas- 
sages he quotes as evidence. Of this theory, according to 
Arrhenius, we shall speak in a later chapter. For the present 
it is sufficient to say of Mr. Erwin's statement of it, that it 
of course assumes time in the past to be unlimited and the 
processes of nature to have had no beginning, which, however, 
are the chief questions at issue. It, moreover, assumes also the 
multiplicity of star-systems — as it merely assumes the above — 
because of the necessity of these assumptions to save existing 
nature from a certain death and dissolution. And, of course, 
an endless universe with one system being born while another 
is going to its death — as indeed an endless cycle of the whole — 
supposedly comes out of these assumptions. We must, there- 
fore, measure the conclusion by the value of the assumed prem- 
ises. 

A preconceived theory that requires proof, has thus often 
led to rather strange conclusions upon the basis of premises that 
had necessarily to be assumed to make such theory work. What, 
then, is the value of such theory as a whole? Such objections 
are, therefore, totally valueless as proofs against the actually 
demonstrable finiteness of the universe, as seen above. 

It was, indeed, held by many astronomers of the past that 
the stellar system to which our sun belongs is only one, and 
perhaps but a comparatively small one, of the indefinite, per- 
haps infinite, number of such systems distributed throughout a 
supposedly infinite space. Thus, some of the fainter star- 
clusters used to be considered by some as far-ofE systems of 
suns like that of our own galaxy, the Milky Way system. And, 



148 Creation Ex Nihilo 

while, before the telescope resolved them into stars, the sup- 
position might have been regarded as a plausible one, surely 
upon their resolution there should have been no excuse for so 
regarding them. Their very resolution into stars should have 
been a sufficient proof that they belong to our galactic system. 
That fact should have proved that the locus of distribution of 
their individual stars is of the same order as that of individual 
stars elsewhere, belonging to our system. And even in cases 
where the resolution has been but very partial or indefinite, 
the evidence now is all against regarding them as other star- 
systems beyond our own, and of course resisting all attempts to 
measure their parallaxes. All these fainter clusters, no less 
than the Pleiades, etc., are now definitely known to belong to 
our galactic system of stars, in the direction of, or within, 
whose wreath-like denser portion they are the most numer- 
ous. And as to their component stars, these apparently are of 
all various sizes — and often even within the same cluster — al- 
though some clusters consist mostly of comparatively larger, 
and some of comparatively smaller, stars. In some clusters 
the component stars appear to be on an average of a consider- 
ably lower order of size than in others. These are probably 
of the order or actual magnitude of our large planets, rather 
than of stars like our sun. But, as long as their parallax can 
not be determined with anything like exactness, the actual sizes 
of these component cluster-stars must remain very indefinite. 

On this point Charles Young had this to say: "Forty years 
ago the accepted view was that the stars composing the clusters 
are no smaller than ordinary stars, and that the distance of the 
star-clusters is immensely greater than that of the isolated 
stars. ... It is now, however, quite certain that the other 
view is correct, — that star-clusters are among our stars and 
form part of our universe. Large and small stars are so asso- 
ciated in the same group in many cases, as to leave us no choice 
of belief in the matter. It is true that as yet no parallax has 
been detected in any star-cluster; but that is not strange, since 
a cluster is not a convenient object for observations of the 
kind necessary to the detection of parallax" {General As- 
tronomy j p. 503)- 

What is true of the star-clusters is equally true of the many 
nebulae scattered up and down the zones of space with in- 
creasing number, as we follow them from the galactic equator 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 149 

toward the galactic poles. The distribution of these is the 
reverse of that of star-clusters. While the clusters are more 
frequent in the galactic belt, the nebulae are most numerous to- 
ward the galactic poles. 

These nebulae used to be considered as different from star- 
clusters only in being much farther away from us. And the 
fact that they could not be resolved into stars, as some clusters 
even then were being resolved, was considered as a definite 
proof of their being beyond star-clusters, and therefore of being 
universes still further in the infinite stellar spaces beyond our 
corner of the greater universal whole. The evidence of the 
spectroscope has, however, precluded all possibility of ever re- 
solving them into separate stars, as they are proved not to be 
stars. While some have somewhat solid nuclei, the spectroscope 
shows them to be of a highly heated gaseous constitution. And 
so their frequent association with distinguishable stars, to whose 
environs they unmistakably belong, proves them also to belong 
to our system. And, therefore, astronomers have also quite 
generally abandoned the idea of associating them with regions 
beyond our own galactic system. 

On this point also we shall quote Dr. Young: "Attempts 
have been made to measure the parallax of one or two, but so 
far unsuccessfully. Still it is probable, indeed almost certain, 
that they are at the same order of distance as the stars. The 
wisps of nebulosity which photography shows attached to the 
stars in the Pleiades (and a number of similar cases appear 
elsewhere), the nebulous stars of Hershel, and numerous nebulae 
which have a star in the centre, — these compel us to believe 
that in such case the nebulosity is really at the star" {Ibid,, 
p. 509). 

Thus the later and maturer conclusions of astronomers, 
instead of enlarging the bounds of our universe beyond the cal- 
culations based upon its earlier and more fragmentary dis- 
coveries, have rather greatly lessened its bounds. 

But is it not possible then that there may be stellar systems 
beyond our own galactic system? What we are denying is not 
their possible existence, but the existence for us of any positive 
evidence for their existence. There surely is not even any 
circumstantial evidence anywhere up and down the depths of 
space in proof of other stellar systems, or outer universes. The 



150 Creation Ex Nihilo 

coal sack theory, or any theory of supposed discernible ulterior 
systems, any theory of dark or invisible systems, can surely not 
truthfully be said to afford such evidence. Indeed, supposedly 
dark universes w^ould even be scientifically impossible, according 
to the very theories vi^hich men of science universally accept. 
Therefore, if stellar systems beyond our own do exist, unless 
altogether isolated from all almost infinitely distant associa- 
tion with our own system, their apparent optical concentration 
upon a space almost like a point, should surely make their 
aggregate light sufficiently strong for transmission into and 
through our system. 

But, even if this were so, it would not alter our conclusion. 
For, then, each of the far-off universes, appearing like a 
veritable concentrated point of light, might be treated in a 
further development of our argument from even its light 
for a finite universe, as though it were a single star of an 
immeasurably higher order. And then, by applying to such 
supposed widely separately stellar systems — or apparent single 
stars or points of light — our argument above for one continu- 
ous stellar system, it should readily be seen that it would by 
no means require an infinite number and extension of such 
stellar systems to make the whole heavens blaze even from 
them like a solid vault of light. 

The above argument would even be equally applicable to 
any number of even such supposed superior universes. Hence, 
no matter what number of even still higher universes of such 
superior universes there might be, that number would still be 
finite, when, at any one point within it, it would blaze like a 
solid ensphering sun. Hence, as the heavens do not thus blaze 
with light, the ulterior universe of such a supposed multiplicity 
of higher universes — or of any number of successive orders of 
them, one within the other, or constituting one another in 
their order — however regarded, could not be infinite, either 
in its number of stars or in its extension. 

However, of such transmitted light from such far-off stellar 
systems, or systems of systems, we have no evidence what- 
ever. But, it might be contended that between such stellar 
systems there might be no transmitting medium like our ether. 
But, then, this would seem to be contrary to all our concep- 
tions of some ultimate unity in all existence. Moreover, the 
very conception of an empty void unfilled even by ether, or 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 15 1 

something analogous to it, is almost as abhorrent to the mind 
of man as it used to be thought to be abhorrent to the nature 
which that mind contemplates. Such absolute space vacuity 
is as impossible to human conception as it is totally contrary 
to nature. Surely, no one should seriously consider the possi- 
bility of such a void of space. Nor have men of science and 
philosophers taken to such a view. As this point has there- 
fore no significance, we need not further discuss it. 

Suppose, however, that there were such stellar systems, or 
universes of them beyond our own, either so far away that even 
their mighty expanse would be to us mere points of light too 
small ordinarily to become perceptible from our far-away 
system, or that they be totally isolated from our own system 
and from one another by the absence of a light transmitting 
medium betv^^een the systems, even that would not invalidate 
our conclusion, that the universe must be finite. Even though 
the universe were so much greater and more wonderful than 
is apparent from our insignificant corner of it, and even in- 
conceivably greater than man's wonderful mind could grasp 
if it were multiplied myriad-fold in its powers, even then 
such systems in their aggregate could not be infinite. How- 
ever, numerous, separately mighty and widely separated, such 
systems, or systems of systems, or universes within universes 
of succeeding orders, might be, together constituting what 
would then have to be called the universe, even these could not 
fill an infinity, any more than they could constitute an in- 
finite. But, why speak even of filling or constituting an 
infinite? An infinite could no more be spoken of as consti- 
tuted of parts than it could be spoken of as being filled, as an 
infinite could surely never be filled. 

Indeed, the mass of what we call matter of such an ulterior 
universe would still be almost inconceivably less in extent 
than the space it would occupy, as we shall show. And, what 
is equally to the point, no number of such system-spaces, any 
more than any number of such systems of stars, however many 
and however extensive each one might be, could constitute 
an infinite. And, therefore, our conclusion still stands se- 
cure; namely, that however great the universe might be or 
might even be conceived as being, it would still have to be 
finite. And thus we arrive at the same conclusion at which 



152 Creation Ex Nihilo 

we arrived several times before by different lines of reason- 
ing; namely, that the universe cannot be eternal, and that 
therefore it must have been created. 

We have thus seen that the physical universe must neces- 
sarily be finite, however inconceivably vast might be its mighty 
stretches of multitudinous contiguous or vastly separated com- 
ponent systems or so-called universes of stars. And, if the 
universe were thus vast beyond all human comprehension, while 
it must yet remain finite and therefore a creature, who could 
comprehend the greatness of its supreme Creator! Indeed, 
as the universe must thus, however conceived, necessarily be 
finite, the greater, mightier and more wonderful it might be 
conceived as being, the more imperative, if that were pos- 
sible, would, in a sense, be the need of an absolute spiritual 
Personality back of it as Creator and Sustainer. And thus 
every argument for an extension of the universe on the part 
of some men who would deny the existence of its supreme 
Creator, is inadvertently an emphasizing of the necessity of 
His existence and, at least in a tangible manner, a magnify- 
ing of His greatness. Thus, the very attempts, on the part of 
such men, to reason God out of existence, is overruled to the 
glorifying of His sublime Being. 

And yet, as we have seen that that Creator must neces- 
sarily be eternal and absolute, and infinite in power, wisdom 
and all other attributes, such a conception of Him as would 
be afforded by even such a vastly greater universe than the 
one we know, would not be an exaggeration of His true great- 
ness. Indeed, it would no more afford even a real measure 
of Him than any finite unit of measure could be made to be 
the measure of the infinite and eternal, as already seen. 

And, for that matter we do not altogether deny the possi- 
ble existence of such star-systems or so-called local universes 
beyond the one known to us, as we can surely not measure 
or set limits to the possible creation of an infinite God. In- 
deed, we have even assumed their possible existence elsewhere in 
this volume. And, to be sure, their existence would only enhance 
our wonder before such unspeakable magnitudes and complexi- 
ties of the stellar systems that would thus constitute the ulti- 
mate universe. And it would naturally only enhance our 
admiration, and instinctively impel us to even profounder 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole I53 

adoration, of Its infinitely more wonderful and infinitely 
greater (If that were possible) Designer and Creator than we 
had supposed — whose existence, from these very considerations, 
must be more certain than that of the universe itself. 

What, then, would man be in the presence of such vast 
magnitudes of creation and before such an infinite Being! 
His existence is Indeed but a point, both as to space and as 
to time, in the presence of the existence in time and space of 
the mighty vistas of the wonderful universe of which he is but 
an Infinltesimally small part. And In the presence of the 
only infinite and eternal Being Who created that universe, man 
Is as nothing. The Russian poet G. R. Derzhavin (1743- 
181 6) beautifully and reverently expressed a comparison be- 
tween man and the universe and their infinite Creator God, 
as follows: 

"Yes! as a drop of water in the sea. 

All this magnificence in Thee is lost; 
What are ten thousand worlds compared to Thee? 

And what am Ij then? Heaven's unnumbered host. 
Though multiplied by myriads, and arrayed 

In all the glory of subllmest thought. 
Is but an atom In the balance, weighed 

Against Thy greatness — Is a cipher brought 

Against infinity! What am I, then? — Naught!" 

And, indeed, if mere magnitude were the only measure of 
man, he would truly be a totally negligible quantity in the 
universal whole of existence. But there Is another element 
that enters Into the measure of man's being, and this gives 
him a stature of truly sublime greatness. And, thus, as if to 
correct the conception of man as expressed In the verse al- 
ready quoted, in the light of this element that makes for his 
lordship over nature, Derzhavin continues, as follows: 

"Naught! — But the effluence of Thy light divine. 
Pervading Vv^orlds, hath reached my bosom too; 

Yes! In my spirit doth Thy Spirit shine, 
As shines the sunbeam In a drop of dew. 

Naught! — but I live, and on hope's pinions fly 
Eager toward Thy presence; for in Thee 



154 Creation Ex Nihilo 

I live, and breathe, and dwell: aspiring high, 
Even to the throne of Thy Divinity. 
I am, O God, and surely Thou must be !" 

{Translated by Bowring,) 

Thus man, in spite of his apparent littleness before the 
universal whole of creation and its Creator, is in another 
sense greater than the universe of matter which he as yet only 
feebly tries to contemplate. He is a conscious personality, in 
faculties even more wonderful than his universe environment. 
Even apart from the Scriptural conception which inspired the 
words of the Russian poet — of a being with a soul created in 
the very image of his Creator — man's existence is in a sense 
even more wonderful than the universe. He is, even after 
the order of nature — as far as our observation extends — the 
crown of nature, or, we might say, nature's uncrowned lord. 
In his mental grasp he seems destined well-nigh to hold the 
universe. His mental and spiritual potentialities who can 
measure! What intellectual conquests he will yet make who 
can even conceive! Suggestive, indeed, are the following 
words of one whose appreciation and measure of man, al- 
though viewed as a being in ruins, are second to none, "What 
a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite 
in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! 
in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!" 
(Shakespeare: Hamlet, Act H., Scene H.) 

We shall now pass on to the consideration of another 
point in our demonstration of the finiteness of the physical 
universe; namely, the necessary finiteness of its aggregate 
matter. 

Vn THE AGGREGATE MATTER OF THE UNI- 
VERSE NECESSARILY FINITE 

The material universe, in its last analysis, is, according to 
the prevailing testimony of scientists, composed of infinitesi- 
mal particles, called molecules, atoms, electrons. These, how- 
ever small, are nevertheless integers; and, however many, their 
number must necessarily be finite. There can be no infinite 
number of integers, for such would be a contradiction in terms. 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic PFhote i55 

A number, however great, always remains finite. So there 
can be no infinite aggregate of individuals or integers, how- 
ever large the individuals or integers. An integer or individual 
(or any number of them) times any number, or number of 
numbers, of them, can never produce an infinite. And this 
is as true of stars or suns as of atoms and electrons, as stars 
or suns are themselves only aggregations of atoms and elec- 
trons; and no number of such aggregations of individual 
atoms or electrons can constitute an infinite any more than the 
individuals themselves. 

Furthermore, if the number of integers or of the ultimate 
infinitesimal particles, were infinite, there would be an infinity 
of different compounds. And, in the light of the electronic 
division of matter, or any further possible subdivision, there 
would then also have to be an infinite number of the so-called 
elements. And the same would be true if the divisions of 
matter were infinite, or if matter were infinitely divisible. 
But this, again, would involve the manifest contradiction that 
the infinite number of compounds — or elements — would neces- 
sarily have to be less in number than the infinitesimal par- 
ticles that composed them. An infinite number less than an- 
other infinite number would not only be a contradiction, but 
it would be a mongrel absurdity! And if this number of 
compounds or elements were not infinite, while the number of 
infinitesimal particles were infinite, we should have a finite 
composed of an infinite in combination, which would also 
be an absurd impossibility. Hence, the number of infinites- 
imal particles that enter into combinations to form the ma- 
terial universe, as also the divisions of matter, must neces- 
sarily be finite also upon the basis of this evidence, and even 
measurably limited. 

Again, if the material universe were infinite, there would 
have to be an infinite number of stars, as well as an infinite 
number of electrons or ultimate infinitesimal components. Or, 
as both their numbers would be infinite, there would have to be 
as many stars as electrons. But this is so manifestly contrary 
to fact that it requires no argument to prove it to be so. Hence, 
even though there were an infinite number (if that were pos- 
sible) of infinitesimal component particles in all the stars, there 
would necessarily have to be a finite number of stars, as their 
number would be inconceivably less than that of their com- 



156 Creation Ex Nihilo 

ponent particles. But, if the number of stars is thus neces- 
sarily finite, so also must be that of their component infinitesi- 
mal particles, as the constitutive particles of a finite can no 
more be infinite in number than they can be infinite in aggre- 
gate mass. Hence, the material universe must be finite in 
masSj in number of stars, and also in the aggregate number of 
infinitesimal constitutive particles. The above reasons, as also 
others given in this volume, not only prove the material uni- 
verse by nature to be a finite entity, but they also prove that 
to assume it to be infinite v^ould involve contradictory absurdi- 
ties. Indeed, a finite universe alone finds its complementary 
counterpart in human reason. Thus observed finite material 
nature alone matches the observer's finite mind, -with vv^hich it is 
in necessary correlation; and both must therefore be the neces- 
sarily finite creatures of the same transcendent infinite creative 
Mind, or Spiritual Personality. 

It is true that w^e cannot conceive of a number above w^hich 
no other number could be conceived, nor any space or magni- 
tude beyond which no other space or greater magnitude might 
be imagined. Nor can vjt conceive of any divisions of space 
or number beyond which no other divisions might be conceived 
as possible. But to say that this mental concept of possible 
space or magnitude and number is necessarily a proof that 
these must therefore in themselves be unlimited or infinite, 
is far from proving them to be so, as already indicated. Thus, 
in the old problem in so-called Infinite Series, "If a crab should 
crawl half the distance back to his pond in one hour, and 
half the remaining distance the second hour, and half the 
distance still remaining the third hour, etc., would he ever 
get there and when?" surely no one would be ready to de- 
clare that, as a practical fact, he would never get back. And 
yet, theoretically one might contend that one-half of the re- 
maining distance would forever remain. And, indeed, the- 
oretically one might almost go to the extent of contending that, 
as there would be apparently an infinite number of these suc- 
cessive halves, their sum, or the entire distance back to the 
pond, would itself be infinite. Thus, theory must not be 
stretched to the absolute nullifying of facts. And, in the 
light of what has already been shown as to the probable limits 
of the physical universe, our cumulative proof for its finiteness 
makes that finiteness practically a physically verified fact. 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 157 

Moreover, to try to explain away space, as well as time, as 
only subjective conceptions, and therefore only appearances, as 
was attempted by Kant, is to do so in the face of that other 
source of knowledge; namely, experience. Though we know 
space only by relations, those very relations necessitate its 
postulation. But more of this later. 

We have now considered the extent of matter as an entity 
by itself, and have shown that, by its very nature, it must be 
finite in quantity. Nor does the extent of space directly con- 
cern us in this connection. As far as it affects matter, space 
might be either finite or infinite. But when we compare the 
extent of matter with that of space, it will become at once 
very apparent that matter at least must be finite. Indeed, 
the very fact that matter occupies space, proves it to be less 
in extent than space, whether space be regarded as finite or 
as infinite. And thus, if space be finite, it should need no 
proof that matter must be finite, as its extent must be even 
less than that of space. And, for that matter, even if space 
were infinite, matter would have to be finite, as otherwise we 
should have two infinite extensions, one of which would be 
less than the other — a manifest impossibility or even absurdity. 
But, for the present, we shall not assign limits to space, so 
that our argument for the finiteness of matter may not even be 
open to any objection along this line. 

It seems somewhat strange that even some otherwise clear 
thinkers apparently overlook, or ignore, the manifest contra- 
diction between the conception of infinite space and that of 
an infinite quantity of matter or of an infinite number of stars 
or systems. And yet, unqualified contradictory statements as 
to these two entities are very frequently met with, in the 
writings of men who hold to the theory of an infinite and 
eternal universe. In quite a recent work, after giving an 
elaborate argument for an infinite universe, with an unlim- 
ited number or an infinite distribution of stars throughout 
infinite space, the writer closes his chapter on the Extent of 
the Physical Universe with the following words: "The writer 
has deemed it necessary to make this brief review of the evi- 
dential facts in favor of the view that there is no limit to the 
distribution of the stars through space, because it is upon the 
assumption that there is such an unlimited distribution, that 



158 Creation Ex Nihtlo 

the hypothesis for the genesis of matter, which he proposes to 
present, is predicated" (Erwin: The Universe and the Atom, 
pp. 1 21-122). And yet, this author takes up at the very be- 
ginning of the next chapter, the discussion of space and mat- 
ter within the bounds of our solar system, saying that the 
space of our solar system "would be 174,000 [which should 
be 174,000,000,000] times greater than" the volume of its 
matter. 

An unlimited number of stars, or an infinite distribution 
through infinite space! How could there be a distribution of 
an unlimited or an infinite within an infinite. How could 
there thus be two infinites, the one almost infinltesimally 
smaller than the other! Moreover, if matter and space were 
both infinite, they would even be mutually exclusive— either 
all empty space or all space-filling matter. At any rate, a 
theory according to which an unlimited number of stars, or 
an infinite quantity of matter, would supposedly be distributed 
through an infinite space, must surely imply a strange concep- 
tion of what constitutes an infinite! 



We have just stated that the conception of an unlimited 
number of stars — or an infinite mass of matter — distributed 
throughout an infinite space, would mean the placing of an 
infinite within another infinite. And yet, that contained sup- 
posed Infinite would then be almost infinltesimally smaller than 
the containing Infinite. 

Let us now go back to our conception of the universe as 
composed of concentric spheres around our sun, and let us 
consider the average density of distribution of the stars to 
be such that a space equivalent to that of a sphere with a 
radius of 300,000 times the distance of our sun from us, or 
27,900,000,000,000 (279X10^^) miles, would contain one 
star. Let us also regard the average star to have a radius of 
500,000 (5X10^) miles. 

Now, let V=the volume of a single-star sphere, 

Ri=the radius of a single-star sphere (279X10^^ 

miles), 
v=the volume of a star, 
and r=:the radius of a star (5X10^ miles). 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole I59 

Then, V : V :: R« : !%• 

or, r«V=R^v. 

RV. 
Hence V=-^ — 

Substituting values of R and r( 279X10^^ and 5X10^), 

v_ (279Xio^')^v 

(5Xio^)^ 
= i73,74i,ii2Xio^'v. 

Hence, the approximate average space that is inhabited by 
one star, upon the basis of the uniform distribution indicated, 
is 173,741,112,000,000,000,000,000 times that of the volume 
of the star itself. This would, of course, also be approximately 
the number of times the space that constitutes the habitation 
of our solar system is greater than the volume of our sun with 
all its planets. It is thus readily seen, upon the basis of the 
approximately determined distribution of the stars, and allow- 
ing for a good size for a star, that the universe of space for 
our whole galactic system would be 173,741,112 X 10^^ times 
the volume of the condensed universe of ponderable matter. 
And this assumes even that such average distribution of stars 
continues as far as their bounding space, which is contrary to 
fact, as already noted. How much more vastly greater, there- 
fore, the space itself of the known universe is than the mat- 
ter it actually contains, it would be difficult to estimate. 
What vast volume of space is thus unoccupied by ponderable 
matter ! 

What vaster volume of space would that then have to be 
that could contain as many stars, upon the same basis of dis- 
tribution, as would be equal to the number necessary to cover 
every point of the ulterior sphere of stars and cause all heaven 
to blaze with light like that of a solid sun-studded globe! 
However, that space would also be 173,741,112 X 10^^ times 
as large as the space occupied by the aggregate mass of all 
the stars. But even this imaginary universe-space would still 
be finite. Then, surely, again we say, if the universe-space 
inhabited by stars, however numerous and far extended, must 
be inconceivably greater than the mass of all the stars, and 
yet is not infinite, much less so could the number and aggre- 
gate mass of all its contained stars be infinite. 



l6o Creation Ex Nihilo 

And, of course, upon the supposition of an indefinite num- 
ber of mighty star-systems beyond our own galactic system — 
if such existed — the relative difference between the mass of 
the combined systems and the continuous space occupied or in- 
habited by them all, would be even immeasurably greater than 
the relative difference between the mass of our (or one) system 
and the space it inhabits, as determined above. For, upon 
the very hypothesis of such existing systems, there would have 
to be vast stretches of void spaces between them, even incon- 
ceivably greater than that actually occupied or inhabited by 
the relatively small multitudinous systems of stars like our 
galactic system, which constitutes the known universe. And, 
if the amount of containing space of our galactic system is 
approximately 173,741,112 X 10^^ times its contained matter, 
how immeasurably many times relatively greater would the 
containing space of these supposed vastly multiplied, and even 
much more vastly separated, star-systems, have to be than the 
aggregate mass of all the systems contained within what would 
then constitute the universal whole! 

It should, therefore, surely require no further argument to 
prove that — even though it were granted that space is Infinite 
— the number and distribution of the stars, and therefore the 
amount of their aggregate mass, can certainly not be infinite — 
whether there be one or many systems, or so-called universes, 
contiguous (or continuous) as to space, but enormously sep- 
arated as to unitary star-systems. And, of course, upon the 
basis of many systems, this supposed infinity of mass would 
relatively even be immeasurably reduced. What, then, be- 
comes of the supposed Infinity! Matter, therefore, is finite in 
extent. How about space? 

VIII THE EXTENT OF THE CONTAINING 
SPACE OF THE UNIVERSE 

We are not ready to concede that even space Is infinite. On 
the contrary, we cannot conceive of a void in outer space. 
Surely, if space were Infinite, we might well suppose that, in 
accordance with the old adage, it would no less abhor a 
vacuum beyond the stellar universe than within it. Here it 
Is at least totally filled with ether — as every evidence indi- 
cates — ^where it is not occupied by ponderable matter. And 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole i6i 

thus we are forced to the conclusion that beyond the universe 
of stars, as far as space extends — if indeed it extends any con- 
siderable distance beyond — all space must also be occupied by 
either ponderable matter or ether, or something analogous to 
them. And, therefore, even if there v^^ere ulterior so-called 
universes, occupying a supposed continuation of space, the im- 
mense stretches of space between our universe and them, as 
well as between one another, would also be thus occupied. 
Hence, their existence would have to be manifest to us by some 
light transmission, as we have also shown above, unless per- 
chance their history did not extend backward over a period 
sufficiently long for such light transmission. This is, however, 
contrary to the very contention of men who hold to the belief 
in an infinite universe, for they as strongly affirm it also to be 
eternal. And thus such an argument for an infinite universe, 
namely, that the light from such supposed far-off universes of 
stars could not yet have reached us, would be tantamount to 
an acceptance of our conclusion, that the universe is not 
eternal and that it must therefore have been created. 

But, even if there were any number of such universes be- 
yond our own, whether knowable to us or not, the space 
occupied by them would not be infinite, as we have shown. 
And, moreover, if there were any conceivable or inconceiv- 
able stretches of ether-filled space beyond the universe of stars, 
or even beyond the bounds of any succession or multiplication 
of universes, even such stretches of space would not be in- 
finite. For, such ether can by nature not constitute an in- 
finite, because of its necessarily granular nature, as we shall 
show in our next chapter; and, therefore, the space it would 
occupy could also not be infinite. Hence, it must follow also 
that even such ether-filled space beyond all possible universes 
of stars or matter, together with the space occupied by such 
universes of matter, could not together constitute an infinite 
entity. As such totality of space would yet be filled with mat- 
ter and ether together, and as neither matter nor ether can 
be infinite, so space as occupied by them cannot be infinite. 
Surely, two finites cannot together constitute an infinite. 

But it may be contended that we have ignored the vast 
aggregate of the interspaces between the particles of the ether 
that pervades the universal whole of space. To this we can 
calmly reply that this would not alter the above conclusion, 



l62 Creation Ex Nihilo 

as the aggregate of these interspaces must also be finite. This 
finite aggregate of supposedly unoccupied interspaces between 
the ultimate particles of the universal ether, would only add a 
third element in the totality of space, which w^ould then have 
to be conceived of as occupied by, or made up of, the finite 
space occupied by the aggregate of ponderable matter, the finite 
space occupied by the aggregate of the ether particles and the 
finite aggregate of interspaces between the ultimate particles of 
the ether. And, hence, the totality of space would yet remain 
finite, as no three finites can constitute an infinite. And this, 
again, conversely, should be an added proof that neither mat- 
ter nor the ether nor the interspaces between the ultimate 
ether particles can alone be infinite, as they together occupy 
space. And this would even be true if space itself were 
actually infinite, as any one of them must necessarily be less 
in extent than the space they together occupy. 

After all, however, as elsewhere noted, space is not itself 
an independent separate entity; but it is rather the expressed 
relation between material bodies. And, as for spirit or mind, 
to such there can be no space occupancy or space relation, such 
as we speak of with reference to matter. But, even regarding 
space as an existing separate reality, would it, even, considered 
apart from matter and ether, necessarily have to be infinite? 
Thus, even if space thus conceived extended indefinitely be- 
yond the universe of stars, or even beyond the supposed all- 
comprehensive universe of universes, all beyond unfilled with 
either matter or ether, or even anything analogous to them — 
if such were conceivable, or, for that matter, if such were in- 
conceivable — could even such ^x/r^-universe space added to 
the aggregate universe-space be infinite? Even the argument 
above would here also in its essential elements be applicable, 
that such aggregate space would have to be finite. It is indeed 
true that we cannot conceive of it as having an end. But, 
then, no more can we conceive of it as having no end. And, 
for that matter, our conception of space, or our ability or in- 
ability to conceive of it either as ending or as not ending, 
does in no way affect or determine the reality or truth of this 
matter. 

The old Euclidean conception of an absolutely three-dimen- 
sional space has for a long time been called in question. Our 
minds are so constituted that, for our thinking, three-dimen- 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 163 

slonal space seems to be a necessity. But, then, does that limit 
space to these dimensions? Are not our minds correlated to 
the part of nature In which they operate, and may not this 
part of nature but faintly Illustrate nature's greater and far 
more complex whole? As, to a man without the sense of 
sight there would be no light and no color, and to a man 
without the sense of hearing there would be no sound, so to 
any being without the corresponding sense-organs there would 
in so far be no physical environment. Thus, the environ- 
ment is known In a natural way only in so far as It Is met 
by the necessary attuned or adjusted sense-organs. And, as 
these physical sense-organs must necessarily be matched by 
their counterpart in nature, so must they be adapted also only 
to their locus In nature. And, where there are realities that 
do not constitute, either in whole or In part, the locus of our 
sense-organs — or to which these are not adjusted or attuned — 
these realities upon a merely natural plane of contact — if In- 
deed there could be such — would, for a person without these 
necessary organs or senses of apprehension for such to him 
transcendental realities, have no existence. 

Moreover, who can deny the existence of space-dimensions, 
or other space-realities, other than those for which our phys- 
ical sensorium has senses of apprehension, because not neces- 
sary for our existence and activity In the little confines of 
nature In which we have our present natural transclent being? 
And, of course, where there are no senses of apprehension, 
there can be no experience or contact with such transcendental 
realities. And, where there is no experience, there can not 
even be a consciousness of them. And, where experience, 
and through It consciousness, can afford us no data for such 
realities, there even the true conception or imagination of such 
realities would by nature be impossible, as even these ulti- 
mately go back to experience. Hence, such realities of space- 
dimensions, If they do exist, can have no natural existence as 
far as we are concerned. 

Moreover, as Jules Henri Polncare so suggestively pointed 
out in his two works, Science and Hypothesis (1905) and The 
Foundations of Science (1913), there Is a real sense in which 
even the axioms of geometry are only conventions for prac- 
tical use. He showed that Euclidean geometry Is no more 
absolutely true than any of the non-Euclidean systems of 



164 Creation Ex Nihilo 

geometry, but that it is the one in practical use because it is 
better adapted to us in our present physical environment. 
Thus, Euclidean geometry best fits in with developed human 
experience. By this, the great French mathematician implied 
that ancestral experience might have been such as to have 
made present human experience equally fitted to some other 
system. And, indeed, he contended that it is quite possible to 
conceive of a world so constructed or constituted that Eu- 
clidean geometry would not be the simplest and most advan- 
tageous. Thus, an indefinite number of logical and self-con- 
sistent systems of geometry have been shown by Reiman and 
others to be possible, as also altogether different conceptions of 
space and space-relations. 

Among other eminent men of science who were inclined to 
accept the possibility of a multidimensional space was the 
astronomer Simon Newcomb. In discussing some of the con- 
clusions of non-Euclidean geometry, he makes the following 
statement: "Although two straight lines, when continued in- 
definitely, do not appear to converge even at the immense dis- 
tances which separate us from the fixed stars, it is possible 
that there may be a point at which they would eventually meet 
without either line having deviated from its primitive direc- 
tion as we understand the case. It would follow that, if we 
could start out from the earth and fly through space in a 
perfectly straight line with a velocity perhaps millions of times 
that of light, we might at length find ourselves approaching 
the earth from a direction the opposite of that in which we 
started. Our straight-line circle would be complete. Another 
result of the theory is that, if it be true, space, though still 
unbounded, is not infinite, just as the surface of a sphere, 
though without any edge or boundary, has only a limited 
extent of surface" {Side-Lights of Astronomy, p. 159). He 
then proceeds to show that, according to this theory, if the 
earth were conceived of as growing larger and larger in all 
directions with a velocity millions of times that of light, it 
would at length fill all existing space, as it would be closing 
in upon and meeting itself — ^which would, of course, have to 
be true of it on all sides. 

It is interesting to note that the astronomer Sir Robert Ball 
came to similar conclusions. His statement upon this point 
is as follows: "I may ... say that it can be demonstrated 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 165 

that all known facts about space are reconcilable with the 
supposition that if we follow a straight line through space — 
using for the word straight the definition which science has 
shown properly to belong to it — then, after a journey which 
is not infinite in its length, we shall find ourselves back at 
the point from which we started" {In the High Heavens, p. 
250). Again, he says: ''Space is thus clearly finite; for a 
particle travelling in a straight line with uniform speed in 
the same direction is never able to get beyond a certain lim- 
ited distance from the original position, to which it will every 
now and then return" {Ibid., p. 251). 

Our point here, then, is, that if the principles of hyper- 
geometry, or so-called non-Euclidean geometry, are true — and 
surely they cannot positively be disproved — then our conclu- 
sion that space is finite, and therefore all the more so also 
that the universe of matter is finite, must stand. One of the 
deductions from multidimensional space is, of course, that such 
space itself is finite. 

But, even if the three-dimensional space were the only 
space-reality, even that would not necessarily make space in- 
finite. And, of course, whatever theory of space we adopt, 
the universe of matter, as already shown, is necessarily, and 
only too evidently, finite. Space can be conceived of as added 
and subtracted, divided and multiplied, as having a before and 
an after, as divided into concentric spheres — as we have done 
for the presentation of some of our proofs for a finite uni- 
verse. And reason would demand that any such entity can- 
not be infinite. That which can be added and subtracted, 
multiplied and divided, cannot be Infinite; for, as already 
seen, no addition or multiplication of parts can make up an 
infinite. Nor can an infinite be subtracted or divided; for, 
if so, each part, as It would necessarily have to be less than 
the whole, mmst be less than Infinite. And thus, after such 
division, we should have left a number of finite parts which 
together would supposedly constitute an infinite. This, of 
course. Is Impossible, or contrary to ascertainable fact or truth. 
And this reasoning would, of course, apply to the universe as 
divided into concentric spheres, as we conceived of it. Indeed, 
what can truly be conceived of as divisible or subtractlble can- 
not be infinite; for no number of such conceivable divisions or 
subtractions can constitute an infinite. 



1 66 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Thus, if space were conceived of as infinite, we should have 
an infinite number of its parts, which is impossible; or an in- 
finite before and an infinite behindj an infinite above and an 
infinite below, thus multiplying infinites, which would be con- 
tradictory. Hence, even containing space is no more infinite 
than is contained matter. Indeed, the very nature of relation 
between material body and material body, no less than the very 
nature of materiality, is itself a definite proof of finiteness. 
Therefore, the physical universe of both space and matter, no 
less than matter or space considered separately and alone, 
is finite. 

Thus, as we believe we have proved in this and the pre- 
ceding chapter, the physical universe is a finite and dependent 
entity, as indeed no physical entity could be infinite and abso- 
lute. And, for that matter, finiteness and dependence are 
necessary correlates, so related that the one, in the nature of 
the case, implies or involves the other. Thus, what is finite 
must be dependent, and what is dependent must be finite. And 
as the physical universe is finite and dependent, it cannot be 
self-existent and absolute. Hence, it must necessarily have 
been brought into existence by a preexistent cause, and can 
therefore not be eternal. 

Some entity must, however, necessarily be eternal and self- 
existent; and indeed only an eternal entity can be self-existent 
or uncreated. Hence, such a self-existent, or uncreated, and 
eternal entity must have existed before the universe. And an 
eternal and self-existent entity must of necessity also be in- 
finite and absolute. And only such an infinite, absolute, 
eternal, and therefore necessarily self-existent, entity could be 
an omnipotent cause. And as, in the very nature of the case, 
there could be only one such entity or omnipotent cause, that 
alone could have been the ultimate creative cause of all other 
existence, and therefore of the physical universe. And that 
absolute, eternal, infinite, self-existent and omnipotent cause 
that created it, with all its potentialities, must necessarily thus 
either directly, or indirectly through the agency of those im- 
posed potentialities, still sustain it. 

But, for reasons already cited, such a cause could not be a 
material or physical entity, as a material or physical entity, 
as also conclusively proved, would necessarily have to be finite. 



Evidence from Nature as a Cosmic Whole 167 

and could therefore not be self-existent, eternal and absolute. 
Hence, such an omnipotent cause must necessarily be an im- 
material, or what we call a spiritual, entity. And, indeed, to 
such a spiritual entity alone there can be no before and no 
behind, etc., as, for that matter, no space relations whatsoever. 
A spiritual entity alone is indivisible. 

And, moreover, as will even more clearly appear in the later 
chapters, that infinite, eternal, absolute, self-existent and omnip- 
otent spiritual entity that is the ultimate cause of the physical 
universe — ^which is the same as saying, the one and only Su- 
preme Being — corresponds to God the Creator and Sustainer of 
all things, revealed in the Scriptures. And Him therefore 
both the man of science and the man of faith alike should 
worship. And, as that infinite creative cause revealed in 
nature and the God of the Scriptures are one, so ought also 
the man of science be a man of faith. 

It can, therefore, truly be said, as will become even more 
apparent from what is to follow, that the unanswerable testi- 
mony of science, instead of making against a supreme creative 
Deity, really establishes the necessity of His existence. In the 
words of the eminent man of science and Christian apologist. Dr. 
G. Frederick Wright, as found in his discussion on Genesis and 
Science, "From every quarter, unexpected light is breaking in 
upon us from apparent darkness. The strength of the evidence 
of the truth of the historical statements in the Bible is, there- 
fore, not diminished, but rather is increased, by modern scien- 
tific investigation" {Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament 
History, 1 906, p. 385). There is thus a real sense in which 
established science is the unconscious handmaid of religion. But 
without further anticipating our later and fuller discussion upon 
this point, we shall proceed to the consideration of additional 
evidence; namely, that from the physically temporal nature of 
the universe. 



CHAPTER VI 

EVIDENCE FROM THE PHYSICALLY TEMPORAL 
NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE THAT IT HAD 
A BEGINNING AND THEREFORE THAT IT 
WAS CREATED 

In the last two chapters we showed, from the inherent de- 
pendence of the material universe, in part and in whole, and 
from its very nature as an aggregate of individuals and as a 
cosmic whole, that it must be finite and therefore temporal, 
and therefore that it must also be a creature. We shall now 
proceed to show also from its nature as a cosmic unity of 
gradually declining forces, that it is not an eternal existence. 
The establishing of this fact will still further add to the un- 
answerable cumulative evidence that the physical universe is 
not self-existent, and that it must therefore have been created 
in time out of nothing, 

I A UNIVERSAL PARALYSIS IN NATURE IM- 
PENDING 

As science attaches great importance to the doctrine of the 
so-called dissipation of energy, amid its correlation and ap- 
parent conservation, let us see how this scientific doctrine 
throws light upon our subject. 

I APPARENT DISSIPATION OF ENERGY AND ITS INEVITABLE 

RESULT 

It is now generally held by scientists that all forms of 
energy have a tendency to be converted into heat, and that this 
heat, either directly or indirectly through applied power or 
work, is as constantly radiated into space, and is therefore ap- 
parently lost. Clausius, in his mechanical theory of heat 
given to the world in 1850, considered this radiated and dis- 

168 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 169 

tributed heat energy as turned inward, which suggested to him 
the name entropy. As this tends toward a maximum, real 
energy, or energy available for further work, as we know it, 
would reciprocally tend to cease. Thus, as the total heat in 
the solar system is necessarily finite, it must finally become 
wholly equalized or apparently lost. And, therefore, the sun 
Itself must grow dim with age until It will be extinguished in 
endless night, while all life and motion must end In irrev- 
ocable stagnation and death. 

And, what is true as to our solar system must necessarily 
be true as to any other system, because all are finite. And, 
as the total heat in each finite system is finite, the sum total 
of the heat of all systems must also be finite. As already 
shown, no number of finltes, either of systems or of their 
quantities of heat, can constitute an infinite. Thus, what is 
true of our solar system and of every other system, must also, 
by Interstellar radiation and apparent dissipation, be true of 
the universal whole. It, too, after countless ages of dissipa- 
tion and equalization of cosmic energy, must end in irrev- 
ocable paralysis and death. 

The inevitable result of this dissipation and equalization 
of energy Is acknowledged even by many scientists who never- 
theless hold to the theory of an eternal universe. Svante 
Arrhenius, In order to escape this altogether natural conclu- 
sion as to the end of the present order of nature, however, 
suggests his theory of the degradation and elevation of the 
supposedly ever divided energy of the universe, as follows: 
"The way out of this difficulty which I propose comes to 
this: the energy is 'degraded' In bodies which are in the solar 
state, and the energy is 'elevated,' raised to a higher level, in 
bodies which are in the nebular state" {Worlds in the Mak- 
inffj Preface, p. XIII). 

That this Is only an assumption, need not be emphasized. 
Moreover, In what follows will be seen its total Invalidity as 
an argument for an eternal and uncreated universe. 

We are, of course, reminded, that, according to the law 
of conservation of energy, no energy Is supposed to be really 
lost. The apparently lost energy is supposedly only being 
transmuted into heat; and as heat it will presumably still be 
equivalent to the sum of all the forms of energy thus trans- 
muted. It will supposedly still theoretically exist as energy; 



I70 Creation Ex Nihilo 

but It will be dissipated for further work, as far as can be 
known. In quantity, it is held, it will still be the same, but 
only in serviceability or availability will it supposedly have van- 
ished. 

And yet, even this would nevertheless mark the end of at 
least the present physical order, when, like a mighty clock- 
work, it will have come to a final stop upon being run down 
— from which, according to the law of inertia, it can not 
start nor rewind itself. And also as to the universal whole 
must this be true. When all the higher available forms of 
energy will have been transmuted into the lower or unavailable 
forms, there will be no energy left available to retransmute 
this at least apparently lost energy back into actual or avail- 
able energy again. 

This important truth was apparently clearly seen by Peter 
Guthrie Tait — an authority on the conservation of energy — 
as is evident from the following words: "Thus the energy 
of the universe is, on the whole, constantly passing from 
higher to lower forms, and therefore the possibility of trans- 
formation is becoming smaller and smaller, so that after the 
lapse of sufficient time all higher forms of energy must have 
passed from the physical universe, and we can imagine nothing 
as remaining, except those lower forms which are incapable, so 
far as we yet know, of any further transformation" {Recent 
Advances in Science, p. 2o). 

Even Herbert Spencer could not avoid reaching practically 
the same conclusion. His words, in virtual accord with those 
of Tait just quoted, have therefore also considerable weight, 
as further strengthening our point. He expressed this prob- 
ability of an end to the present physical order, as follows: 
"In all cases, then, there is progress toward equilibrium. That 
universal co-existence of antagonist forces which, as we before 
saw, necessitates the universality of rhythm, and which, as 
we before saw, necessitates the decomposition of every force 
into divergent forces, at the same time necessitates the ultimate 
establishment of a balance. Every motion, being motion under 
resistance, is continually suffering deductions; and these un- 
ceasing deductions finally result in the cessation of the mo- 
tion" {First Principles, p. 447)- And on page 471 of the 
same work he definitely declares that the fact that the end 
of all transformation must result in quiescence, "admits of 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 171 

a priori proof." 

Moreover, even if this apparently lost energy should be 
regarded as the resultant of the ultimate transmutation of all 
kinetic energy into potential energy, it might with consider- 
able suggestiveness be asked, With reference to what would 
that potentiality be? This would necessarily suggest an in- 
finite and absolute entity outside the physical universe. But, 
for all we know, the law of conservation may here break 
down, the kinetic energy being perhaps in part at least used up 
in "work," instead of being converted or transmuted without 
loss. This would, of course, mean temporality. Indeed, some 
phenomena of radioactive substances leave virtually no room 
for doubt that this is the case. Of this we shall, however, 
speak later. 

2 THIS CONCLUSION NOT ALTERED BY THE THEORY OF 
STELLAR CONSOLIDATIONS 

It has even been held by a limited number of men of 
science that not only is the energy being equalized by radia- 
tion, and therefore practically dissipated, but that even the 
whole material universe tends in the course of countless ages 
towards consolidation. Thus, the earth and other planets are 
supposed to be imperceptibly retarded in their velocities 
around the sun, by friction in the ether, or by some other 
cause of some loss of energy in the revolution, so that they 
are spirally approaching the sun, for further fuel, dissipation 
of heat and final reconsolidation. So, also, similarly con- 
solidated systems are supposed to be drawn toward other 
systems, until the whole starry universe will have been con- 
solidated and its available energy, for the time at least, 
equalized or stilled. However, during the process of recon- 
centration of suns and systems, their successive collisions, it is 
also contended, are converted into heat for further radiation 
and for the development of other successive local universes, 
according to the nebular theory. 

Of course, we need hardly say that this is only theory, for 
which we cannot expect any proof in our present limited state 
and environment. Whatever data are supposed to be afforded 
by the researches of physical astronomy or astronomical 
physics, are after all only isolated facts, for which we may 



172 Creation Ex Nihilo 

not yet have any reliable Interpretation at all. Moreover, 
after once the available energy of the universe would be equal- 
ized or stilled, if left to itself, the universe could not begin 
a new cycle of existence and operation. Then, according to 
this theory, whence the energy or power to revivify, rejuvenate 
or reenergize a quiescent universe? Here, too, a transcendent 
power, an absolute Being, must be postulated to make such a 
theory workable. Herbert Spencer apparently wished such a 
theory could be established, but he was at least frank enough 
to declare, "The question whether there is an alternation of 
evolution and dissolution in the totality of things is one which 
must be left unanswered as beyond the reach of human intel- 
ligence" (First Principles, p. 506). 

Had Spencer stopped here, he would have remained within 
the bounds of consistent reason! But then he leaps forward 
in scientific imagination, or scientific faith, to the declaration 
that evolutions have filled an immeasurable past and evolutions 
will fill an Immeasurable future, and that the universe must 
be conceived of as not to have an end and as having had no 
beginning. Thus, where reason stops or fails, scientific faith 
or imagination Is invoked to fill out blanks in preconceived 
theories that would make the universe eternal and uncreated, 
and that would therefore eliminate from It the need of the 
eternal God. 

But, nevertheless, even accepting such a theory of successive 
evolutions and devolutions, this process, however long con- 
tinued and however often it might be repeated, would at last 
spell stagnation and death to universal nature, as no number 
could measure off an eternity. And, as already intimated, as 
potential energy and kinetic energy alternate each other in 
these supposed successive universes, they might ultimately both 
be lost in the descending work of equilibration, thus ending 
in a final universal paralysis. 

The foregoing should be convincing argument to show that, 
when all energy will have been stilled, or lost, the material 
paralyzed cosmos would undoubtedly have to disintegrate, 
even as the body does when life departs from it. And disin- 
tegration would undoubtedly mean annihilation, as we shall 
show. The energy gone, we could conceive of no necessity for 
the existence of matter, nor perhaps even of Its possibility, as 
we know matter only by Its resistance or energy. 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 173 



3 THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY EXAMINED 

Even if the sum of all the various forms of energy in a 
closed or isolated system could be proved to be unchangeable, 
this would not prove it to be so throughout the whole uni- 
verse. But, it might be said that the very fact that energy 
even in a closed system becomes less and less available, would 
almost certainly indicate that it is being spent in its very work 
of transmutation and equalization. Thus, the law of the con- 
servation of energy might hold for an isolated system for all 
practical purposes during the comparatively short centuries, 
but eventually in such a system, as well as in the cosmic whole, 
break down. As a law it would be applicable in practice 
within its proper sphere; but beyond that sphere it would 
not hold. 

There is, indeed, a growing feeling among some eminent 
scientists that the law of the conservation of energy has been 
accepted upon no better evidence than until recently were 
the scientific doctrines that matter is divided into some eighty 
totally different and absolutely untransmutable elements, and 
that their so-called atoms are indivisible. These once uni- 
versally accepted scientific doctrines, together with that of the 
conservation of energy, as also that of the conservation of 
matter, as great working hypotheses, subserved a great pur- 
pose in the development of science. But to allow them to 
stand unchallenged in the face of evidence to the contrary, 
would tend seriously to hamper scientific progress. 

As far as science had penetrated into the mystery of mat- 
ter up to less than a quarter of a century ago, there was no 
evidence against the supposed indivisibility of the atom and 
the immutability or indestructibility of the great variety of 
chemical elements. But no longer do men of science think 
of the atom as the ultimate unit of matter, nor of the so-called 
chemical elements as necessarily composed of totally different 
substances. The electron as a common constituent of all 
atoms, and the monistic nature of matter, have already been 
elevated above mere theory. We are not, however, now 
thinking of the Haeckelian monism as the explanation of all 
existence. 

Indeed, our former definitions of matter and energy, es- 
pecially as distinct entities, according to the latest pronounce- 



174 Creation Ex Nihilo 

ments of philosophic scientists, are no longer strictly correct. 
If the electron is only an electric charge, then so-called matter 
is nothing but energy. Thus, matter would be only a mani- 
festation of energy, and the variation of the one would be a 
variation of the other. The cessation or destruction of the 
one would be the cessation or destruction of the other. Thus, 
if the very structure, or even the existence, of the atom itself 
depends upon its electronic motions or its intrinsic energy, 
then the quiescence of these would mean the ultimate dissolu- 
tion and annihilation of matter. 

A number of authorities have thus come to the conclusion 
that energy is not indestructible. According to them, the law 
of conservation of energy is not an established fact, but rather 
an almost necessary postulate for practical reason. Both sci- 
ence and mechanics imply the application of this law, at least 
locally for their sphere of operation. But such application 
for practical purposes in our very limited here and now, would 
not make it universal in the greater stretches of space and 
time. Among those who have not accepted the doctrine of 
the conservation of energy as absolute are such eminent physi- 
cists as M. Bernard Brunhes, M. Sabatier, M. Henri Poincare 
and Gustave Le Bon, the first named emphatically rejecting 
it. Le Bon expresses himself unequivocally as not accepting 
this scientific doctrine, in these words: '^'Energy is not inde- 
structible. It is unceasingly consumed, and tends to vanish 
like the matter which represents one of its forms" {The Evo- 
lution of Forces, p. 99). 

However, retaining, for the present, our idea of matter as 
an apparently distinct entity, is not energy, after all, due only 
to the moving of matter? Or is not so-called energy only 
matter in motion? We might thus regard all energy as 
probably, in its last analysis, nothing but motion or the effect 
of motion. It is more common to regard energy as that 
which produces motion rather than as the effect of motion. 
In a sense, it is really both. So-called energy might be re- 
garded first as having come from the primal arrangements 
of matter in its elements. Then, by adjustment, there would 
naturally result motion or energy; and this in its turn would, 
of course, produce or reproduce motion or energy in related 
bodies, and so on. But this reasoning at once throws us back 
upon some ulterior or first cause of both matter and energy. 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 1 75 

Whence the primal arrangements of matter by which so-called 
energy first had its origin? And whence the matter for such 
arrangements? The only possible answer to these questions 
must be evident and needs not here be enlarged upon. But 
can we really separate energy from adjustment and adjust- 
ment from matter, chronologically? We may do so logically, 
but to do so chronologically is impossible. 

Thus, a great deal depends upon how a phenomenon in 
nature is viewed; and important scientific results at times 
depend upon such view. This possibility of viewing phe- 
nomena in different ways is strikingly expressed by Professor 
Aliotta, as follows: "Had researches into heat been made 
first, there would have been a tendency to write books en- 
titled: Motion Considered as a Form of Heat, instead of 
those bearing titles such as that of Tyndall's work: Heat 
Considered as a Form of Motion. Hypotheses are the perish- 
able part of science, there is, however, something which lives 
on as a lasting acquisition; namely, the laws which express the 
relations between the magnitudes of experience. Naturgesetze 
sind dauernd, Hypothesen sind verganglich" {The Idealistic 
Reaction against Science, Tr. by Agnes McCaskill, 19 14, pp. 

357-8). 

But, to return to our view of energy, we should say that 
we shall here regard energy, known to us in physical nature, 
as essentially the effect rather than the cause of motion. Thus, 
upon this basis, as is readily acknowledged, so-called physical 
energy is the result of moving molecules or masses. Chemical 
energy is undoubtedly the moving of electrons from atoms to 
atoms, and similarly for any conceivable form of energy. 
Therefore, stagnation or cessation of motion, toward which 
the universe is unmistakably tending, would mean a real dis- 
sipation or loss of energy. 

Much confusion as to the nature of energy is no doubt due 
to a quite current misconception that it is some subtle entity in 
itself, somehow associated with matter as though it were some 
mysterious fluid flowing through or among the multiform 
divisions of matter. From this conception of energy has 
arisen the somewhat indefinite notion that there is a circula- 
tion of energy throughout the universe, now appearing under 
one form and now under another form, and that these various 
forms are changeable and transmutable, one into another. 



176 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Thus, the ideas of the correlation and conservation of energy 
took their forms from such a supposed correlation and con- 
servation of matter, as seemed apparent from the nature of 
matter as far as it was formerly known. But, even this, as 
we shall see, by a better understanding of the ultimate nature 
of matter, can no longer unqualifiedly be accepted. 

From what we said about energy and motion as now 
operative in nature, it becomes apparent that, as there must 
be a cause for the same in physical nature, even after some 
necessary ultimate or first cause that produced such secondary 
physical cause, it appears altogether probable that it is due 
to an adjustment of equilibrium. This is very apparent in 
the case of energy from the equalization of heat, chemical 
energy, electrical energy, etc., and as is more and more be- 
lieved to be the case in gravitation. Thus, when an equilib- 
rium will have been reached, the energy caused by the tend- 
ency toward equilibrium will have been spent. And, where 
equilibrium exists, there can be no energy present until such 
equilibrium will have been disturbed. And such disturbance 
must necessarily come from another source. Thus, the tend- 
ency toward equilibrium, which is so distinctly manifest 
throughout nature, would ultimately necessarily end in the 
actual annihilation of all its energy. 

In accordance with this definition of energy, what becomes 
of so-called potential energy? Has it any existence in reality? 
Thus, a ball suspended above the earth is in a position, upon 
being released from which it will produce energy by the force 
of gravitation. But, while it is suspended and motionless, it 
has no real energy; and upon its being released, its energy is 
due only to its position with reference to the earth. The 
energy developed by its fall is due to the adjustment of equilib- 
rium between it and the earth. And, but for the force of 
gravity it would even then develop no energy. Moreover, if 
it could be conceived as dropping to the centre of the earth, 
or if the earth could be conceived of as a concentrated point, 
it would eventually come to absolute rest in equilibrium with 
the earth's gravity. The same reasoning would apply to the 
solar system, or to the universe as a unitary whole. All 
energy in the universe being ultimately due to adjustments of 
positions toward equilibrium, when that final equilibrium will 
have been reached, all energy will have ceased. A finite uni- 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 177 

verse in space must therefore necessarily be a finite universe 
in time. 

This, then, brings us to the question as to the primal source 
of all energy. Suppose we were, for the moment, to accept 
the theory that in the evolution of the cosmic ether into atoms, 
etc., all energy was stored up, so to speak, for the evolu- 
tion of all worlds. Then, all energy, after that primal storing 
of energy, would be due to a ceaseless adjustment of position 
toward universal equilibrium. So-called cosmic evolution 
would thus be due to this process of adjustment. In other 
words, as the so-called kinetic energy in this process of ad- 
justment would approach its maximum, due to the releasing 
of elemental matter in its long process of adjustment, its im- 
pulse might be supposed to develop cosmic nature. And with 
that maximum of kinetic energy the maximum of the evolu- 
tionary process would also be reached. Then, as the kinetic 
energy would again decrease in the consequent adjustments, 
the opposite of evolution, or devolution, would set in and 
would necessarily be accelerated until, in the final dissipation 
of energy, the material cosmos would be resolved into its 
primal ethereal state. The kinetic energy would decrease 
with these final adjustments. As motion would approach zero, 
this energy would approach zero. The kinetic energy being 
^mv^, when the v became zero, the kinetic energy would be 
equal to ^mo", or zero. 

And, if the theory that so-called matter is nothing but 
energy, or that matter is only energy cognizable by the senses, 
were true, or that energy and matter are so related that the 
one varies directly with the other, then, as v would approach 
zero, m also would approach zero. Or, as energy would de- 
crease, so-called matter would decrease. Our formula, -Jmv^, 
would thus eventually become ^00^ (equal to zero) : or both 
energy and matter would disappear or pass away. In other 
words, if all things were only modes of motion, as is held by 
some physicists, then the resultant equilibrium, or rather 
quiescence, would mean annihilation of both energy and mat- 
ter, even without any destructive fiat of a transcendent Deity. 

Thus, then, whether energy is really or only apparently lost 
in transmutation, there will be a final universal paralysis, 
which in either case wiU therefore mean the end or death of 



178 Creation Ex Nihilo 

the present order of nature, and its undoubted annihilation. 
The wheels of nature in revolving and rotating suns and 
planets w^ill cease to move; the mechanical, chemical and vital 
forces of all v^^orlds will be balanced in mortal equilibrium; 
and v^^ith this stagnation the universe will be dissolved into 
its elements. And, then, v^ith the disintegration of its atoms 
by their intrinsic energy, the ultimate energy of the universe 
v^ill apparently be spent, and its material substratum v^^ill un- 
doubtedly pass away. Thus, limitation as to the future is 
written clear and large over universal nature. 



4 THE THEORY OF AN INFINITE QUANITY OF ENERGY CON- 
SIDERED 

Upon the basis of a theory that energy is a separate real 
entity, some men — for example, Herbert Spencer — have sug- 
gested that the total energy itself might be infinite, and that 
this would make possible an endless or eternal dissipation. If 
that were true, it is contended, then the universe could have 
no end, nor, of course, could it have had a beginning. 

As so-called matter is, however, finite, as already shown, 
regarding it as the basis or passive substance in which energy 
operates or acts, that energy for which this finite matter would 
be the basis would also necessarily have to be finite. This 
would follow also from the law of secondary cause and effect, 
as developed in the fourth chapter. Moreover, as energy is 
quantitative, and can be measured in its various manifesta- 
tions, it must, upon this basis also, be regarded as finite, for no 
aggregation or multiplication of measured quantities can con- 
stitute an infinite. Therefore, even this suggestion, made in 
the interests of a possibly eternal, and therefore uncreated, uni- 
verse, in order to eliminate the need of a Deity, is seen to have 
no foundation in truth or fact. 

Moreover, as to a supposed eternal evolutionj there would 
be an inherent insurmountable difficulty. If evolution were 
external, its end would have to be infinite. Then, what would 
that infinite product be? Again, if the universe were eternal 
and the evolution were not eternal, where or when would it 
stop? Moreover, such a possible end of evolution would be 
in direct conflict with the preconceptions of these men as to 
the operations of an infinite and eternal universe. Hence, an 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 1 79 

explanation must be found to overcome this difficulty. And 
such an explanation, apparently satisfactory to himself, Spen- 
cer attempts to give in the following w^ords: "Is it possible 
for the universal metamorphosis to proceed in the same gen- 
eral course indefinitely? or does it work towards some ulti- 
mate state admitting no further modification of like kind? 
The last of these alternative conclusions is that to which we 
are inevitably driven. Whether we watch concrete processes, 
or whether we consider the question in the abstract, we are 
alike taught that Evolution has an impassable limit" (First 
Pj'inciples, p. 446). 

Thus, one theory must be developed to bolster up another. 
Eternal evolution would mean an infinite product. That, in 
accordance with Spencer's own philosophy, would be incon- 
ceivable. And an evolution not eternal would mean an end 
of evolution; and, in the light of the present operations of 
nature's laws, it would mean an end of nature with her laws. 
This is a dilemma, either horn of which it would be dangerous 
to his philosophy to grasp. Hence, a limit must be assigned 
to the evolutionary process beyond which nature's laws must 
be either eternally passive, or perchance operative along other 
lines of evolution, or of devolution for another re-evolution, 
etc. But where is that limit of this supposed evolution? 
What or who set its bounds? If nature's laws are supposedly 
uniform in their operations up to a certain point, why should 
that uniformity of operation thus at that point break down? 
Who keeps on recharging the batteries of an eternally cycling 
universe? Where now is the great law of inertia? But why 
press further questions! It is enough to say that all this was 
mere theory even with Spencer himself. And it is, of course, 
only too manifest that even this theory implies an absolute 
and eternal Cause at every step. And even then it would 
not prove the existing universe to be eternal with reference to 
the future — as already shown — any more than it could prove 
it to be eternal with reference to the past — as we shall pres- 
ently see. 

Thus, upon whatever basis considered, the physical universe 
will have an end. And this is the conclusion that is neces- 
sarily reached, both from its only too manifest testimony and 
from its very nature. Thus, even John Fiske was moved to 



i8o Creattort Ex Nihtlo 

accept the teaching of the Apostle Peter (II. Peter, Chapter 3) 
on this point, as definitely expressed in the following words: 
"The day is to come, no doubt, when the heavens shall vanish 
as a scroll, and the elements be melted with fervent heat. So 
small is the value which Nature sets upon the perishable forms 
of matter!" (The Destiny of Man, p. 114). Or, in the 
words of England's greatest poet, 

"And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, 
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, 
The solemn temples, the great globe itself. 
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve; 
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded. 
Leave not a rack behind." 

(Shakespeare: Tempest, Act IV., Scene I.). 

II A BEGINNING IN THE PAST EVIDENT FROM 
THE PRESENT OPERATIONS OF NATURE'S 
LAWS 

An application of the principles and facts stated above, 
also unmistakably points to limitation, or a beginning, in the 
past. 

I EVOLUTION MUST NECESSARILY IMPLY A BEGINNING OF 
ITS OPERATION 

Had the universe — ^which is necessarily finite, as already 
shown — existed from eternity, then in the eternity past, or 
long ago, would the outworkings of its laws have been ac- 
complished. And, therefore, its supposed evolution would 
necessarily have run its course to a completed universe unas- 
signable ages ago. Surely, the various forms of energy in 
cosmic nature would long ago have been transmuted into heat; 
the heat would long ago have been dissipated and equalized, 
or lost; and that universal paralysis and undoubted annihila- 
tion would long ago have taken place. Indeed, if such an 
evolutionary process had been at work from eternity, it would, 
countless ages before the advent of man, have resulted in 
such a being, and indeed in an infinitely more wonderful 
being. Yea, an eternal or infinite evolution would necessarily 
have produced infinite beings — veritable gods. But, the heat is 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe i8i 

not yet equalized; all energy has not yet been transmuted into 
heat; man is still immeasurably below the perfect and infinite 
being that such eternal evolution should have produced; and 
nature's laws are still at work on their evidently designed 
mission. And, according to these men, the universe is even 
still developing. This supposed past eternity of evolving 
worlds, it might almost be said, must thus have begun in even 
practically measurable or assignable time — ^which, of course, is 
an absurdity. 

This fact of the beginning in time of the universe, is also 
the most assured conclusion of science. Thus Simon New- 
comb expresses this truth with reference to a star, in the fol- 
lowing emphatic words: "The general fact that every star 
has a life history — that this history will ultimately come to an 
end — that it must have had a beginning in time — is indicated 
by so great a number of concurring facts that no one who 
has most profoundly studied the subject can have serious 
doubts upon it" {The Stars, pp. 223-4). Even Herbert 
Spencer was compelled to remark, that, upon the theory of 
the dissipation of energy, etc., there would not only have to 
be an end of the world or universe, but that there also must 
have been a beginning. 

Thus, as this theoretical process of evolution, etc., has sup- 
posedly been going on and is still supposed to be going on, it 
must have had a beginning in time, when all the potentialities 
of all its operations were imposed upon inert already created 
matter — or upon matter in its creation — from an external 
source, or by some external power. This was, as we should 
say — if matter and energy be regarded as distinct entities — 
by the omnific will of Him Who previously had also created 
matter — or while creating matter — as the substance or medium 
for the operations of the associated energy. Or, if matter be 
regarded as only energy manifested, or energy as matter 
merely in process of adjustment, it was when that matter or 
energy was thus first spoken into being. Nor could any initial 
distribution of heat or other energy be otherwise accounted 
for, not even upon the fanciful theory of any supposed preced- 
ing universe or universes, as no number of such could consti- 
tute an eternal successive or concatenated entity. Thus, even 
though such a theory of evolution were true, yet nevertheless 
our explanation of the origin of matter and energy — or of 



1 82 Creation Ex Nihilo 

matter or energy — would alone satisfy reason, even as it alone 
could satisfy the human heart. 

If such a theory of evolution v^ere true, even then God 
w^ould no less remain the Source of all. From Him must have 
come the material substratum for the operations of energy, or 
energy as the manifestation of so-called matter. From Him 
must have come all the potentialities for evolutions Into ac- 
tualities, In the gradual transmutation of potential energy 
Into kinetic energy and back again, and In the transmission or 
generation of matter and energy from preceding to succeeding 
universes — as already Intimated. 

Thus, surely, then, there must have been a beginning of 
the universe, or else It w^ould long ago have passed away. 
Then, whence or how its energy, or its matter — again we say 
— if not from an Infinite and absolute Cause? 

To avoid this obvious difficulty, It is held that matter, In its 
etheric form at least, existed from eternity, and that the energy 
came from the contractions and condensations of the ether Into 
ponderable matter. In answer to this we say that the first 
part of this statement, that matter is eternal. Is, of course, a 
begging of the question ; and that the second part, as to its con- 
centration, would be Impossible without an external cause. 
Even if there had been on hand an eternal etheric matter, of 
Itself It could not contract and concentrate; it could not pro- 
duce energy; and therefore it could not develop Into an en- 
ergized cosmos. Hence, even upon the absurd assumption that 
matter in its etheric form was eternal, a Deity must be postu- 
lated back of that supposed ether for the evolution of the uni- 
verse from it. But, surely — as we are endeavoring to dem- 
onstrate — there must have been a Deity back even of that 
primal etheric matter as the cause of Its existence, no less than 
as the cause of its energy in a supposedly evolved or evolving 
universe. 

Arrhenius apparently sees the untenableness of the theory of 
a continually progressive and eternal past evolution, as wit- 
ness the following words: "Up to the beginning of this cen- 
tury [twentieth] the gravitation of Newton seemed to rule 
supreme over the motions and over the development of the 
material universe. By virtue of this gravitation the celestial 
bodies should tend to draw together, to unite in ever-growing 
masses* In the infinite space of past time the evolution should 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 183 

have proceeded so far that some large suns, bright or extinct, 
could alone persist. All life would be impossible under such 
conditions" {Worlds in the Making, pp. 207-8). The fact 
that planets, etc., about our sun — and probably about other 
suns or stars — still exist unabsorbed by, or unconsolidated 
with, their central suns, has led Arrhenius to look for a cause 
of such apparent delay in the universal concentration. This 
he finds in "the action of the mechanical radiation pressure 
of light, and in the collisions between celestial bodies." 

Such counteracting of the force of gravitation by radiation 
pressure, etc., would, however, imply a perfect balancing of 
these forces, or else either concentration or disintegration 
would nevertheless eventually result. However, the ascer- 
tained evidence of nature is against the existence of such an 
equilibrium of forces. At any rate, even such equilibrium 
would not make for an eternal order. Even such a supposedly 
perfect arrangement would necessarily have had to be originated 
and adjusted by a power other than that of nature's own 
existing forces. Hence, when considered in the light also of 
other evidence, especially that set forth in our next chapter, 
the universe must stand forth as a temporal entity. 

2 THE THEORY OF REPEATING OR SUCCESSIVE UNIVERSES 
INADEQUATE 

As already indicated, some scientists have endeavored to 
account for an eternal process of evolution in nature, by 
working out an apparently consistent theory of a possible re- 
peating of evolutions from chaos to completed cosmos, by 
cycles of redisintegrations and reevolutions. According to 
this theory, our present stage of supposed evolution, or course 
of nature, would be only one of these cycles, not yet risen to 
the height of impending redisintegration for a new reevolution. 
They thus attempt to imagine a past eternity of such repeat- 
ing cycles. This theory was already suggested by Democritus 
(fl. about 400 to 357 B. C), who made bold guesses that all 
matter is made up of atoms, and that the cosmic whole is an 
eternity of repeating cycles — of birth, maturity, death and 
rejuvenescence. 

The present conception of eternally repeating cycles has 
been well expressed by a number of writers. In his work, 



184 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Chemistry and Its Borderland, 19 14, Alfred W. Stewart de- 
clares that "the generally accepted theory of cosmic evolution 
postulates a cyclic process in the universe" (p. 198). And 
this theory of cyclic evolution he develops somewhat at length; 
and his explanation, as a mere scientific theory, is very in- 
genious and rather plausibly self-consistent. However, upon 
examination it is seen, in the interests of consistency, to set 
forth, as though established, point after point for which nature 
affords but the faintest evidence, or at least only such very 
fragmentary evidence as in no way warrants the implied con- 
clusions. Soddy, too, holds to the possibility of an evolution 
"proceeding in continuous cycles, without beginning and with- 
out end, in which the waste energy of one part of the cycle is 
transformed in another part of the cycle back into available 
forms" {The Interpretation of Radium^ p. 240). This state- 
ment is, of course, based upon the almost unlimited energy and 
the vast life periods of radioactive substances. But no exag- 
geration of such energy and duration of existence, nor of any 
other known forces or cycles of forces operative in nature, would 
constitute an eternal process. Geoffrey Martin holds that the 
rate of formation and the rate of disintegration of matter in 
the long run balance each other. After speaking of supposed 
nebula formation and of condensing worlds and reproduced 
nebulse from collisions and condensations of worlds, he makes 
the following statement: "And so on for all the ages circulates 
the universe, like some vast self-compensating machine, radia- 
tion pressure compensating gravitation, and the concentration 
of potential heat energy in the nebulae compensating its loss 
in the suns" {Triumphs and Wonders of Modern Chemistry, 
191 1, p. 54). This view of Martin is in agreement also with 
the theory held by Arrhenius, as developed in Chapter VII. of 
his Worlds in the Making. 

It is true that there are some rhythmic compensating opera- 
tions apparently continually going on in nature; but these 
by no means afford adequate evidence for any acceptable theory 
of supposed eternal cyclic universe-processes. Our very lim- 
ited data as to the processes of the universal whole are alto- 
gether insufficient to enable us from them to draw the con- 
clusion that the universe is an eternal entity. And, in the 
light of the evidence of its necessary finiteness, as already 
seen, as well as that of the temporal nature of matter itself, 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 185 

to be shown in the following chapter, the only logical con- 
clusion possible is that the universe as a whole is also a tem- 
poral entity. 

It might be said, however, that, if the absolute Cause of the 
universe were included in the above idea of the universe, as 
from eternity possessing the potentiality of the physical uni- 
verse — which would be an absurd inclusion in that word — 
there would be a sense in which the universe might be said to 
have always existed. Thus, in that unwarranted sense of the 
word universe, as including the eternal Cause of the conse- 
quently eternally potential universe, one might figuratively 
speak of it as eternal. And we fear that this is the somewhat 
confused sense in which the universe is by many eternalists re- 
garded. We cannot help but consider this as even Haeckel's 
position. 

It is seen that the scientists quoted above speak of cyclic 
transitions from nebulae to stars and back to nebulae again, 
and of immeasurable epochs, in connection with this supposed 
evolution of the universe. And, as radiation pressure is un- 
doubtedly as much a reality as gravitation, their theory would 
at least have this indefinite suggestion to commend it to the 
speculative mind. If such were the creative Deity's chosen 
methods of operation, it would make possible an immeas- 
urably longer duration of the universe than various other iso- 
lated phenomena seem to indicate, as we shall see. But, no 
number of cyclic transitions and immeasurable epochs, how- 
ever long each cycle or epoch might be, could measure ofiF or 
fill an eternity. For, however great their number and how- 
ever long each cycle, their accumulated addition or multiplica- 
tion would still produce finiteness. And, therefore, however 
long that time in the grand aggregate, it would still be short 
of an eternity. Moreover, the very association of these cycles 
or epochs with such supposed evolution would necessarily be 
a contradiction, if they constituted eternity. 

It is certainly a long step from immeasurable epochs to 
eternity. It is, moreover, a bold step to assume that gravita- 
tion and radiation pressure are so balanced as to cause a con- 
tinuous repeating of universes. The very least deviation from 
equality in such balance, according to this theory, even though 
caused only by ethereal friction, etc., would in almost ascertain- 
able time result either in total concentration or in total disin- 



1 86 Creation Ex Nihilo 

tegratfon, as already noted. And, in either case — from some 
facts already cited and others to be cited — it would point to 
the death and end of the universe. And hence, as that death 
or end has not yet been reached, it would incontrovertibly 
prove that the universe also had a beginning. Indeed, this 
conclusion is inevitable from a number of considerations, 
whatever theory as to repeating universes might be offered. 

These facts, therefore, afford incontrovertible proof that this 
cosmic nature with its myriad forces and laws had a begin- 
ning in time, and that there was a time when it did not exist. 
Hence, these considerations alone should be convincing that 
the universe, and therefore matter, cannot have existed from 
eternity, and that it must therefore have been created. 

3 OUR CONCLUSION NOT CHANGED BY MAKING THE ETHER 
THE FINAL REALM OF ENERGY 

It has been contended by some men that the final realm 
or end of the so-called dissipation of heat, and therefore of all 
energy, is the imponderable ether, that this ether must be 
extended infinitely, and that therefore this would be a suffi- 
cient medium or ground for an eternal radiation. 

To be sure, there can be no radiation of heat into abso- 
lutely empty space, for if heat is a mode of motion — as 
Tyndall first defined it — it necessarily implies a something 
moved. The same is, of course, true of all energy, as already 
seen, upon the basis of such a definition. Heat, or any other 
form of energy, can therefore, upon this theory of energy, 
not exist apart from a moving substance. And, therefore, the 
existence of the ether must be postulated in order to account 
for this so-called dissipation of energy, as well as for other 
phenomena of light, etc. — unless we changed our conception 
of heat, etc. And, if our definition of heat were changed to 
accommodate it to a supposed non-existence of the ether — or 
space-vacuity — then that apparent dissipation of energy into 
an empty interstellar void, upon such a theory, also would 
necessarily become a real dissipation and loss, and therefore 
without ultimate conservation of it — a fact to which we have 
already called attention. Then, this dissipation, in hastening 
the end of the universe, an end, however, not yet reached, 



Evidence from Temporal Nature of Universe 187 

proves that ft necessarilj^ had a beginning. 

But, retaining our conception of heat, any substance in con- 
nection with which it can exist must be composed of individual 
moving or mobile particles. Therefore, ether being posited, it 
also must be a substance composed of individual particles, as 
we shall more fully show in our next chapter, or else there 
could be no vibration and therefore no radiation. It must, 
therefore, for the reason already given, be finite in extent, 
as we have shown indeed matter or anything analogous to mat- 
ter to be. This would altogether contradict this objection. 
Therefore, the radiated, or supposedly dissipated, heat or 
energy throughout the universally ether-enveloped stellar uni- 
verse, would always have been approaching its equilibrium. 
Hence, that equilibrium would also long ago have been 
reached, if this supposed distribution and equilibration had 
been going on from eternity. 

Therefore, the present order of nature, however viewed, 
had a beginning, just as we have showed it also to be tend- 
ing to its inevitable end. Nor would the indefinite multiplica- 
tion of succeeding orders of nature in the past, as we have seen, 
remove their primal beginning to the eternity of the past, any 
more than their indefinite multiplication in the future would 
move their end to the eternity of the future — if indeed we 
could speak of a past and a future in relation to a beginning- 
less and endless eternit)^ And, as the aggregate of any num- 
ber of universes whatsoever could not make up an infinite in 
quantity or space, so the combined durations of^ any number 
of consecutive universes could not measure off an eternity or 
infinite in time. A beginning there must have been, whether 
there have been many successive universes, or only one, as also 
there will be an end. 

And even if that end, in the absolute sense, were not brought 
about by the operations of its own laws or what might be 
called its inherent death, its annihilation would undoubtedly 
none the less take place. The very fact of its certainly ap- 
proaching death or paralysis, upon having fulfilled its evi- 
dently designed mission, would as surely imply its annihilation 
by the destructive fiat of an omnipotent Will, as its evidence 
of a beginning in time as an ordered universe implies its primal 
origination by that same Will. Thus, just as the evidences of 



1 88 Creation Ex Nihiio 

3L beginning in time as an ordered universe imply its primal 
origination by an omnific Will, even apart from any direct 
proofs of that fact, so does the very fact of its certainly ap- 
proaching death or paralysis, upon having fulfilled its evi- 
dently designed mission, imply its annihilation by that same 
omnipotent Will, either indirectly by the originally imposed 
inherent forces, or directly by His final destructive fiat after 
its created purpose shall have been subserved. And, indeed, as 
already noted, as a finite universe it could no more continue 
through the eternity of the future than it could have existed 
from the eternity of the past. To be sure, we are here speak- 
ing of a future and a past eternity — a necessity for human con- 
ception and expression — but in reality there is no past nor 
future in an unmeasured and undivided eternity, in which 
there naturally is no time relativity. 

In what is said above, as well as elsewhere in this volume, 
about the undeniably temporal nature of the physical universe, 
we would, however, not imply that there may not have existed 
universes, also necessarily created entities, before the present one 
and that there may not be created universes after the present 
one will have ceased to be. Nor would we even imply that the 
Omnipotent might not have created this or any possible past 
universe — or might not create a future universe or universes — 
to continue in unchanging duration forever. What we do 
assert is, that, according to the existing universe's own over- 
whelming testimony, it is so constituted that it is by nature 
necessarily a temporal entity. And the evidence is as convinc- 
ing that it had a beginning in a creation ex nihiio as it is that 
it will have an end in annihilation. And thus the evidence is 
equally convincing that it is not an end in itself, but only a 
created temporal means for the working out of some transcen- 
dent purpose, a point which we shall briefly consider in another 
chapter. 

It is therefore evident from the operations of nature con- 
sidered as a unitary whole, that the universe must necessarily 
be a temporal, and therefore a created, entity. We shall now 
proceed to show in our next chapter also from the very nature 
of matter itself, that it will have an end, and that therefore it 
must have had a beginning, or that it must have been created. 



CHAPTER VII 

EVIDENCE FROM THE NATURE OF MATTER 
ITSELF THAT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS A 
TEMPORAL ENTITY 

As various theories of matter have been developed by phi- 
losophers and scientists, it is important to know whether these 
can affect our conclusions. This is, however, virtually as 
much a question of metaphysics as it is of physics in the more 
general sense. 

It is more and more being held that we do not know matter 
directly, but that we know it only by its properties and 
phenomena. This is, of course, in accord with the Kantian 
conception, that we know only phenomena but not that of 
which they are the phenomena. Thus, we may see an object 
by its color; we may hear it by what we speak of as its sound; 
we may feel it by what we know as its heat, its resistance or 
its weight; we may taste it by what we designate its flavor; 
we may smell it by what we call its odor. But, apart from 
its color, sound, heat and weight or resistance, flavor, or odor 
— and these are apparently merely the results of the vibrations 
of its hypothetical particles — it does not exist as far as our 
physical senses are concerned. Indeed, if we could conceive 
of our senses as different from what they are, the object would 
necessarily appear different to us. Therefore, the same object 
would appear different by its differently affecting differently 
constituted sense-organs. And this difference might be con- 
ceived of in any possible degree, even to non-existence — 
which, of course, would be the case for us with the entire re- 
moval of our sense-organs. Moreover, even as we are con- 
stituted, to a certain extent no two persons have exactly the 
same sense-impressions from the same object. And, there- 
fore, no two persons really ever see or know the same object 

189 



190 Creation Ex Nihilo 

alike. That we do not really know matter itself, is thus held 
by many scientists, as well as philosophers. 

Outside of ourselves there is, therefore, apparently no light, 
heat, color, sound, or odor. From the view-point of per- 
ceiving man, matter may, therefore, be regarded as virtually 
an abstraction. And, by many thinkers it has been regarded 
as even unthinkable apart from energy, the ultimate physical 
cause of its so-called phenomena. Moreover, to define matter 
properly is practically impossible, as by its very nature there 
is nothing with which to compare it, or in terms of which to 
form a definition. As it is itself fundamental, there is noth- 
ing more simple and fundamental of which it consists, and by 
reference to which it can be expressed or defined. The ques- 
tion has, therefore, naturally arisen as to what the ultimate 
or absolute nature of that is which we call matter. 

The majority of thinkers have, however, come to the con- 
clusion that matter is the mbstantia or essence which con- 
stitutes the basis or medium of phenomena. Phenomena would 
thus be only the manifestations of matter under different modes 
and conditions and with different attributes or properties. 
These would, therefore, not themselves be substance, but only 
the manifestations of substance, which constitutes their basis 
and makes them possible. This may be spoken of as the ma- 
terialistic conception of matter. We are here, of course, deal- 
ing only with what is generally known as material or physical 
substance. 

There are other thinkers, however, who consider what we 
call matter as nothing but energy. So-called matter itself, ac- 
cording to this view, has no existence in reality, and apart 
from energy even its apparent existence would cease. Accord- 
ing to some, the ultimate nature of this so-called matter is 
electrical. 

According to the view of some philosophers, matter would 
be virtually only a necessary postulation of reason. With 
Plato (427-347 B. C.) it was only the correlate of idea, and 
so had existence only as such. With Descartes (1596-1650), 
Locke (1632-1704), Bishop Berkeley (1684-1753), Fichte 
(1762-1814), and even apparently in a sense with Lotze 
(181 7- 1 881), it had no real objective existence. Generally 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 191 

speaking, these views may be called the idealistic conception of 
matter. 

The apparent reasoning of many men starts from the idea 
of mere resistance and ends in non-existence. Resistance is 
offered by matter, and so it is by energy. And, as we know 
what is called matter ultimately only indirectly by energy, so- 
called matter and energy must be identical. And, moreover, 
as we know so-called matter or energy only as sense-impres- 
sion, it can have no real existence apart from the senses, and 
must therefore be a non-reality. Thus a natural conclusion 
often reached by such reasoning is idealism. We cannot stop 
to examine the merits of such reasoning, except to say that, 
while for usj apart from sense-perception, in its broader sense, 
matter would not exist, such lack of sense-perception on our 
part would in itself not prove its non-existence. It might be 
an objective reality not only in itself, but also for other pos- 
sible perceiving beings. 

While we cannot here enter into a discussion of these rather 
general conceptions of the ultimate nature of what we call 
matter, we may say in anticipation of what is to follow, that, 
upon the basis of these conceptions, matter is at least not a 
permanent or enduring entity. If it were only a postulate of 
reason, or an idea, or merely a so-called sense-perception, then 
of course apart from the thinking or perceiving mind it would 
have no objective reality. And, even if it be only the basic 
substantia or medium of phenomena, then without phenomena 
we could know nothing about it, and for us at least it would 
have no reality. And, as phenomena would seem to be the 
final cause of the existence of matter, it would appear that 
it must have come into existence with and for phenomena 
and that with the passing of phenomena it also would pass 
away. Thus, even these preliminary considerations as to the 
nature of matter almost necessarily imply that, however re- 
garded, it had a beginning, and that it will have an end. 

We shall now proceed to consider the principal definite 
theories as to the nature of matter that have been offered; 
namely, the atomic theory, the centre-of-force theory, the 
vortex-atom theory, the electrical theory and the ether theory. 



192 Creation Ex Nihilo 

I THE ATOMIC OR PARTICLE THEORY OF 
MATTER 

The quite general verdict of science has hitherto been that 
matter consists ultimately of infinitesimal individual particles, 
called molecules, atoms, etc. This view is known as that of 
the discrete or grained structure of matter, as against that of 
continuous substance. These particles of matter are supposed 
to be so infinitesimally small that it would require a vast num- 
ber of them together to become visible under the most power- 
ful modern microscope. 

We rather like to retain the name atomic theory, as it has 
become venerable by age. _, Long before the days of modern 
chemistry it was already hoary with antiquity. Beginning 
with the Greek philosophers Leucippus (fl. 500 B. C.) and 
Democritus (fl. 375 B.C.), and somewhat more fully de- 
veloped by the great Roman natural philosopher Lucretius 
(97-53? B. C), this theory, under slightly different forms, 
has had its adherents among philosophers ever since. In its 
modern form as a chemical theory its founder was Dalton 
( 1 766-1 844), who found it a necessary deduction from the 
law of multiple chemical proportions in the union of the ele- 
ments into compounds. 

With the development of modern chemistry this theory has, 
at least as to some of its elements, passed from the sphere of 
theory to that of scientific knowledge. And the various other 
scientific theories of matter are to a large extent only modifica- 
tions of this old theory. This, therefore, expresses the hitherto 
rather generally accepted conception of scientists as to the na- 
ture of matter. It, of course, is also the basis of modern 
atheistic materialism. 

According to this theory of matter, in its later development, 
corpuscles combine into atoms, atoms combine into molecules, 
and these combine into masses. And thus these minute par- 
ticles in their combinations constitute the material universe. 
Thus, the common substance called water is a combination of 
hydrogen and oxygen, in the proportion of two to one, and is 
therefore expressed HgO, two atoms of hydrogen uniting 
with one atom of oxygen to form a molecule of water. 
And, no matter what the mechanical methods employed, all 
divisions of water, however minute, must result in water still. 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 193 

But, by the application of chemical methods, the water mole- 
cules can be split into their constituents, two atoms of hydro- 
gen and one of oxygen; and these can thus again also be re- 
united into their compound, water. 

Atoms of the eighty or more different chemical elements 
have selective tendencies to unite in various proportions or 
numbers with one another, some having greater ranges of 
affinities and some smaller. And, of course, all atoms of the 
same element are apparently alike, while atoms of different 
elements are different in size, chemical affinity and other prop- 
erties. Some enter into a much greater number of substances, 
according to their selective affinities. Moreover, from the 
revelations of the spectroscope it is definitely determined that 
the same elements, in varying proportions, enter into combina- 
tions to form the earth, the planets, and the sun and stars. 
Thus, the whole material universe is apparently composed of 
the same material substances; and it is undoubtedly throughout 
atomic or grained in its ultimate structure. These infinitesimal 
particles, bound together by mysterious laws of so-called at- 
traction under different forms, constitute the foundation stones 
of the universe. Further details of this theory are not neces- 
sary here, for our consideration has to do with this and other 
theories as they affect the problem of creation. 

Upon the basis of this theory of matter, no matter how 
many of these infinitesimal particles and how great their num- 
ber of combinations, they could not constitute an infinite, as 
already shown. Nor could they of themselves have produced 
the universe. For each particle required the creative act of 
a transcendent Will to call it into being; and for every mo- 
tion there must have been an external cause — the same tran- 
scendent Will. Even the law of the so-called conservation of 
matter implies its creation, as nothing can either produce or 
destroy itself. Moreover, a thing must first exist before it 
can be conserved. The law of inertia implies that its motions 
came from some initial impelling force ; as, unless thus impelled 
by an external force, it would forever have remained at rest. 
Therefore, the atomic theory of matter and the universe necessi- 
tates an absolute personal Will as the creative Cause. 

Furthermore, according to this theory of matter, these ulti- 
mate particles are unchangeable by any physical processes, both 
as to their substance and as to their intrinsic properties. 



194 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Therefore, this very unchangeableness by any forces of nature 
should be sufficient proof that they are not the product of any 
forces of nature. This is really equivalent to saying that they 
were not self-created, for their existence itself forms the ma- 
terial basis of nature and constitutes the basis of operation for 
nature's forces and laws. Moreover, the wonderful way in 
which these particles are fitted together and combined into 
molecules, etc., shows that they are meant for one another 
in the building up of this wonderful cosmos, and that they 
must therefore have been created for that purpose, according 
to some wonderful plan. But of this we shall speak more fully 
in our next chapter. 

The contention of modern materialistic pantheism that this 
material cosmos is itself God, can, of course, not stand in the 
light of the atomic theory; for no number of such particles 
and their combinations can constitute an infinite. The uni- 
verse is thus necessarily finite, and therefore limited and rela- 
tive — as also demonstrated in former chapters. And such a 
limited and relative existence would imply something beyond 
it by which it is limited or to which it is related as a dependent. 
And, as only an infinite can be unlimited and absolute, such 
only can be conceived of as Deity. Moreover, as shown else- 
where, to make of the material universe God, would be to 
multiply the number of deities to as many as there are indi- 
vidual molecules, atoms, corpuscles, etc., throughout its mighty 
reaches. But, Deity must necessarily mean unity of individual- 
ity and of action, as well as unity of essence, every element 
of which the atomic or particle theory of matter contradicts. 
Hence, the atomic universe cannot be God. Therefore, ac- 
cording to the atomic theory, there must be a Deity beyond, 
and most assuredly also within, the universe, Who is its Cause 
as Creator and Sustainer. 

Thus, even the very ultimate particles bear witness that 
they had a beginning, and like silent index-fingers point back 
to their Creator Who designed them and gave them their 
being. And their ceaseless revolutions and marvelous harmony 
in intricate combinations, add to this silent evidence of the 
existing particles their eloquent testimony not only that these 
particles have their existence from a Creator God, but also 
that their every motion is by His throbbing energy. 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 195 

II THE CENTRE-OF-FORCE THEORY OF 
MATTER 

A very ingenious theory of matter was the one suggested by 
Ruggiere G. Boscovich (1711-1787), and more fully elabo- 
rated bv Michael Faraday (1797-1867), et aL, and considered 
plausible by such men as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and 
Thomas Huxley (i 825-1 895). According to this theory, what 
we know as matter is nothing but force. What the atomist 
calls the ultimate particles of matter, the advocate of this 
theory considers to be only centres of force. The ultimate par- 
ticle is considered merely as an unextended point, not a ma- 
terial substance, and therefore nothing but energy. It may 
be said that this theory was in a sense foreshadowed or antici- 
pated by the idealistic philosophers Descartes, Locke, Berkeley 
and Fichte, who regarded what we speak of as material sub- 
stance as merely combinations of qualities or phenomena. With 
them, the one entity, or the only reality, was the soul. 

This theory would, of course, remove such difficulties as 
some supposed reason why the ultimate particle or the so- 
called atom could not be divided. If it is material, it must 
have extension, and therefore some solidity and surface. Why 
it would not therefore be divisible, no one could tell. Then, 
too, if the atoms be material substances, and all of them in- 
dividually and unitedly in motion, there must be vacuity be- 
tween them. And the supposition that the ether fills this 
vacuity would only hand on the mystery of vacuity from the 
inter-atomic spaces to the spaces between some hypothetical 
ether particles. And this, too, would apparently be equally in- 
explicable. This much, therefore, this theory has to com- 
mend itself. 

It is not for us here to enter much into a discussion of 
such a theory. But the natural inference seems to be that, as 
motion implies something moved, there could be no energy 
without a moving substance. There could apparently be no 
activity without passivity. Therefore, to speak of abstract 
centres of force, would seem to be to speak of an impossi- 
bility. How could there be centres of force without a pas- 
sive basis in which to operate? There could be no energy, 
apart from will, without a moving or residing medium. In 
fact, the human will, as we know it in its present state, always 



196 Creation Ex Nihilo 

operates through its physical basis. And, as for energy in 
the case of a disembodied or unembodied spirit, it would be 
highly improbable that the term energy, as we know it in 
physical nature, would fully apply. Indeed, the very existence 
of friction, not to speak of extension and other properties, 
should make this hypothesis of centres of force practically 
untenable; for these properties could hardly be ascribed to 
pure force or energy. 

But, the point for us to make is, that, even if this theory of 
matter were correct, it would not invalidate our conclusions. 
On the contrary, it would rather all the more firmly estab- 
lish them. If the supposed atoms were only centres of force, 
they might not themselves even be force. Indeed, we can 
really conceive of will alone as a cause, or a real centre, of 
force. Therefore, this theory would, upon its very surface, 
lead us to that Will by which all things must have come to 
be. And, if the whole universe were only a manifestation, or a 
series of manifestations, of force or energy, then the cessa- 
tion of motion in the dissipation of energy, as fully explained 
in our last chapter, would certainly mean the end of the 
universe. And, to say that the energy would still remain, 
only unavailable, in another form, would simply be begging 
the question. In this case, upon the basis of this theory of 
matter, cessation of motion would mean cessation of energy. 
Potential energy could not even be spoken of, as there would 
be no medium, or positions of matter, for such supposed 
potential energy, as there would be no matter. Surely, anni- 
hilation of motion would then mean annihilation of energy; 
and thus, according to this theory of matter, annihilation of 
motion or energy would mean the annihilation of the uni- 
verse. 

And, what is more, such energy could not have been self- 
originated. Even apart from the law of inertia, if considered 
applicable, the law of causality v/ould forbid any other con- 
clusion. A Will to energize all could have been the only 
possible and natural cause of its origin. Therefore, according 
to this theory of matter, universal annihilation of what we 
call matter or the physical universe, would be its inevitable 
end. And the time of this end might almost be foretold from 
calculations based upon data at hand. Hence, according to 
this centre-of 'force theory of matter, the universe would neces- 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 197 

sarfly be temporal. It would have an end; and it must also 
have had a beginning. 

Ill THE VORTEX-ATOM THEORY OF MATTER 

Another theory of matter is one that was hinted at by 
Hobbes (1588-1679), and somewhat more fully developed by 
Sir William Thompson, later Lord Kelvin (1824-1907). Ac- 
cording to this theory, the so-called atoms are small vortex- 
rings of rotations of a perfectly continuous fluid filling all 
space. This is, therefore, in a sense also a modified form 
of the venerable atomic theory. It differs from it on the 
subject of the divisibility of the ultimate atom, as also on its 
supposed exact behavior. According to the old atomic theory, 
the ultimate atom was supposed to be indivisible because of 
its being the ultimate unit of matter, that by its very nature 
would resist division, perhaps because of a certain hardness. 
The word coherence would not do, because it implies the pres- 
ence or union of more than one to form a coherence; and 
this would be contrary to the old idea of an ultimate unit. 

According to the vortex-atom theory, the supposed ultimate 
atom is not indivisible because of its hardness, but because of 
its non-resistance to pressure or force, by virtue of its vortex- 
motion in a perfect fluid. Such motion in perfect contiguity 
to similar motion all around it and continuous throughout the 
vast stretches of space-filling ether, is thus supposed to cause 
the resistance or evasion necessary to make its further divi- 
sions impossible. It would, therefore, be virtually equivalent 
to dividing space itself. 

This theory is, to say the least, a very ingenious one. If 
it be contended, as has been done by some of its advocates, 
that the so-called vortex-atoms or vortex-rings, are nothing 
but motion, then with the cessation of motion, toward which 
universal nature is tending, as we have shown in the pre- 
ceding chapter, all these vortex-rings or vortex-atoms would 
disappear. This would necessarily be the end of the so-called 
material universe. And, if these vortex-atoms were in constant 
motion within the ether, ethereal friction, however infinitesi- 
mal, would certainly eventually cause all motion to cease. 
And, that there is friction in the ether, is evident from the 
pressure, and the time element in the propagation, of light, 



198 Creation Ex Nihilo 

heat, etc. Therefore, temporality must be written across na- 
ture, on the basis of this theory. Indeed, even if the vortex- 
atoms, and from them the visible universe itself, were a de- 
velopment from the ether, as has also been held, even then 
friction would have to be postulated to account for such a 
development, as development always implies friction. But, 
as friction in the ether would nullify the idea of perfect 
fluidity, the theory here already would fail. Moreover, this 
very presence of friction would show a time element in such 
development of the universe. And this, in its turn, would 
necessarily imply that that development must have had a be- 
ginning, or else it would long ago have been completed. 
Hence, even this points to a beginning of the universe, and 
therefore to its creation in time out of nothing. 

In its ultimate analysis, this theory would, of course, appa- 
rently also leave the atom a substance. Its vortex-motion 
would imply a moving something, even if it be but the ether 
itself. But its weakness seems to lie in a palpable contradic- 
tion; namely, that a continuous substance could consist of an 
indefinite number of such vortex-atoms or vortex-motions. If 
the ether were so composed, it could surely not be spoken of 
as a continuous medium. But, even if this were held, the 
fact would still remain that, as you could not have an infinite 
number of such supposed vortex-rings or vortex-atoms, it 
would necessarily remain a finite, limited, non-absolute, tem- 
poral, and therefore created entity. And, such great forces 
as electricity and gravitation could apparently not be explained 
without assuming some hypothetical independently operating 
external corpuscles in coincident but smaller vortex-motions. 
Then, what or whence these hypothetical smaller vortex-atoms 
or vortex-motions? 

Moreover, a perfectly continuous medium could not pos- 
sibly be conceived of as being in motion in its contiguous parts, 
though as a finite unitary whole it might be conceived of as 
in motion. But, of course, such a universe as a moving uni- 
tary whole could not be infinite. An infinite could not be 
conceived of as in motion; as motion would imply an external 
something within which, or with reference to which, as an 
infinite static, or other relatively moving finite existence, such 
motion would take place. This external something would 
thus be a limitation to such a moving universe, and prove it 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 199 

to be finite. An infinite would necessarily have to be mo- 
tionless. And, again, an infinite could not consist of parts 
any more than it could consist of particles. It would have 
to be an undivided unity. To an infinite there would be 
no beginning in extension nor an end. It could not be conceived 
of as having an up or a down, a right or a left, a before 
or a behind, an east or a west, a north or a south. 

As to an infinite there could be no parts, so to it there 
could be no successions. As to an infinite there could be no 
successions, nor revolutions, no relations nor changes, so to it 
there could be no time, since time is the measure of succes- 
sions. The measure of the duration of its existence, if it could 
be spoken of as a measure, would therefore have to be eternity. 
An infinite would therefore have to be timeless, as well as 
motionless. Conversely, a timeless existence would have to 
be infinite. And, furthermore, an infinite could not have been 
or be created, for creation implies an external existence within 
which such creation takes place or its product can exist, even 
apart from the creative Cause. This is also confirmed by the 
fact — as shown above — that an infinite must necessarily be 
eternal, as creation implies a time or beginning of creation, 
before which its infinite creative cause must have existed. 
Then, too, an infinite must necessarily be absolute, as shown 
elsewhere; and absoluteness implies self-existence and eternal 
duration. 

Therefore, even upon the basis of the vortex-atom theory, 

the universe would have to be finite, temporal, and therefore 
created — and of course necessarily created by an external 
Power or Will, ex nihilo. This reasoning would also apply 
to the other two theories of matter already discussed, as 
well as to the two yet to be considered. 

As thus shown, such a supposed continuous medium for 
the vortex-atom motions, or the associated universe, would 
have to be finite and temporal, and therefore a created exist- 
ence. This fact is also fully attested by a further considera- 
tion of these supposed motions; namely, that these could no 
more have been self-originated than could the basic moving 
stufE, if it might be called so. Thus, though this theory may 
seem to shift further back a great First Cause, it no more 
accounts for existing nature without an omnipotent creative 



200 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Will than does any other. 

It must, of course, be remembered that all these three 
theories assume an ultimate something merely as a working 
hypothesis to explain phenomena. In their last analysis all 
are therefore finally based upon scientific faith no less real, 
and no less helpless of actual demonstration, than the Chris- 
tian's faith in the revealed fact of the creation of the world 
by a transcendent Deity. 

IV THE ELECTRICAL THEORY OF MATTER 

We have thus far considered three theories of matter — the 
atomic theory, the centre-of-force theory and the vortex-atom, 
theory. We have seen that, instead of strengthening the con- 
tention that the universe is infinite, eternal and therefore un- 
created, the whole weight of the evidence according to these 
theories is against such a contention. In other words, upon 
the basis of these three theories, the universe must be finite, 
temporal and created. There are still two other theories of 
matter that we shall consider. And, because of their very 
great importance for our subject, thus necessitating a fair un- 
derstanding, we shall consider them more at length and in 
detail than the other three. In this subdivision we shall dis- 
cuss the electrical theory, developed in connection with the 
remarkable recent discoveries as to radioactivity, etc. 

I STEPS IN THE DISCOVERY OF RADIUM 

The discovery of the X-rays in 1895 was the opening wedge 
to a number of nature's secrets. Although several earlier 
chemical discoveries had paved the way for this one, and had 
even foreshadowed some of its phenomena, the discovery of 
these waves by Roentgen marked a definite transition point 
from the older to the newer chemistry. Chemistry has now 
truly become the astronomy of the infinitesimal. 

Although these X-rays somewhat resemble waves of light, it 
was soon learned that, because they cannot be reflected, re- 
fracted nor polarized, they are perhaps not exactly of the nature 
of light; and it was supposed, therefore, that they are prob- 
ably not waves of ether. It was, therefore, seen that, in deal- 
ing with these subtle waves, science was dealing with a new 
set of phenomena, and perhaps — as was at first suggested — 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 201 

even with a new medium for wave transmission. A great 
field for scientific speculation w^as thus opened up. 

While authorities were for some time divided as to the real 
nature of these X-rays, the prevailing opinion now is that 
they do consist of transverse waves within the ether, some- 
what similar to light waves of short wave-length. They un- 
doubtedly belong to the unexplored end of the ultra- 
violet region. These are not, however, like those of light, 
a regular succession of waves, but rather a series of irregular 
pulses. The ether-pulse theory of the X-rays does not, how- 
ever, explain all their phenomena in passing through matter. 
It is, therefore, held by Bragg, and others, that they consist of 
minute corpuscles, as better explaining all the phenomena. 
This theory was proposed by Bragg in various issues of the 
Philosophic Magazine, 1 907-1 910. According to this author- 
ity, these X-ray corpuscles are neutral doublets, proceeding 
with great velocities. 

The phosphorescence on the glass walls soon led Becquerel 
to the discovery of the rays that bear his name. These were 
found to be due to the natural radioactivity of uranium, and 
to resemble the X-rays. Deeply interested in this discovery, 
the Curies tested different uranium ores, and found different 
ores having different degrees of radioactivity, some of them 
having even more radioactivity than pure uranium. That this 
unusual radioactivity was not due to uranium itself, but that 
it was due to some hitherto unknown element, was therefore 
certain. To isolate this element was the task set before 
themselves by the Curies. After elaborate tests with large 
amounts of pitchblende, they finally succeeded in separating 
this substance in the form of a salt, 1895 — though as a pure 
element it was apparently not isolated until 191 1, when. Mme. 
Curie finally succeeded in doing so. Because of its marvelous 
amount of radioactivity they very appropriately called it 
radium. It was soon found that this substance has, according 
to some estimates, one and a half million times as great a 
radioactivity as uranium. It should, however, be said that for 
the extracting of only the very minutest amount of radium it 
requires tons of pitchblende. Indeed, only a comparatively 
few ounces have as yet been isolated. It is said that radium 
is as rare in pitchblende as gold is in sea water. Hence, its 
great cost, which is several million dollars an ounce. 



202 Creation Ex Nihilo 



2 THE VARIOUS RAYS OF RADIUM 

In this wonderful element we have a complexity of phe- 
nomena that are full of meaning. It gives forth three princi- 
pal kinds of waves or radiations, called alpha, beta and ffamma 
rays, by Rutherford, to which have been added the delta rays. 

The alpha rays are composed of escaping minute particles, 
which have been found to be atoms of helium, whose atomic 
weight in terms of hydrogen is 4. Their velocity is calculated 
to be from about 12,000 miles to 20,000 miles a second, or 
averaging nearly one tenth of the velocity of light (Ruther- 
ford has lately placed this at 10,000 miles). Though these 
alpha particles (helium atoms) are very minute, their kinetic 
energy is comparatively very great. Their power of penetra- 
tion, of course, varies with the density of the matter pene- 
trated. Rutherford estimates that a cannon ball moving with 
the same velocity would have many thousand times as much 
energy as would be necessary to melt it and dissipate it into 
vapor. But, on account of the relatively larger mass and 
smaller velocities of these alpha particles than those of the 
particles of the other rays to be discussed, their penetrating 
power is not as great. They apparently pass through atoms of 
matter in their path, thus ionizing them. 

The beta rays are apparently composed of sub-atomic cor- 
puscles, which have been called electrons. These probably 
escape singly from their atoms, and are very much smaller 
than the alpha particles (helium atoms). The helium atom is 
a little over lO"^ cm. in diameter (more correctly probably 
about 1.25X10'^ cm.) ; or it would require nearly 250,000,- 
000 helium atoms side by side to measure an inch. And yet, 
from their velocity and deflection, etc., the electrons are cal- 
culated to measure only about lO"^^ cm. in diameter. In act- 
ual size the helium atom must therefore have a diameter 
near 10^, or 100,000, times as great as that of an electron; 
or it would be nearly 10^^, or one quadrillion, times as large 
as an electron. And, therefore, as a helium atom contains 
about 6,800 (4X1,700) electrons, the distance between the 
revolving electrons — if they were uniformly distributed 
throughout this atom — would be relatively very great. This 
distance between the electrons, upon the basis given, we find to 
be approximately 4,000 times their diameters. What an In- 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 203 

conceivable number of electrons in a minute particle of radium 
weighing but a gram! 

It is, of course, readily seen that, because of their smallness, 
as well as because of their great velocity of an average of 
about 90,000 miles a second (ranging from about 40,000 miles 
to 170,000 miles), these beta particles (electrons) have a 
much greater power of penetration than the alpha particles 
(helium atoms). They can penetrate one fourth of an inch of 
lead. And, of course, of these beta particles or electrons, every 
atom of radium contains probably upwards of 350,000 (about 
226X1700), each revolving on an average of about 90,000 
to 100,000 miles a second. 

These beta particles are found to be the same as the Cath- 
ode-rays of Crookes' so-called "Radiant Matter," obtained by 
passing an electric current through a highly evacuated vessel. 
And, even here the electrons can be made to attain a velocity 
of 10,000 miles a second — and even much more, according to 
some authorities. 

The gamma rays are apparently irregular pulses in the ether 
with approximately the same velocity as that of light. They 
are considered to be the same as the X-rays, but with even 
greater power of penetration than those artificially produced 
rays. These gamma rays can penetrate about two feet of iron. 
They occur only in conjunction with the beta rays, by the im- 
pact of which they are undoubtedly caused. Indeed, Ruther- 
ford lately has come to the belief that they are from distur- 
bances in the ring of electrons nearest the positive nucleus, 
to be considered later. The penetrating powers of these three 
kinds of rays, considered above, are about as i, 100, 10,000 — 
the alpha rays penetrating about -5^^ of an inch of alumi- 
num, the beta rays about \ of an inch, and the gamma rays 
about 20 inches. 

The delta rays are believed to be slow-moving beta particles 
(electrons) struck off from ordinary matter by the impact of 
the other rays. Their velocity is about 25,000 miles a second. 

The recoil rays constitute a fifth kind of radiation often 
spoken of. These are due to the recoil of the residuum of 
atoms sending forth the alpha and beta particles. And, as the 
alpha particles consist of helium atoms and are, therefore, 
much larger than the electrons of the beta rays, this recoil 
radiation caused by the expelling of the alpha particles is much 



204 Creation Ex Nihilo 

greater than that caused by the expelling of the beta particles. 
As the atomic weight of radium is 226 and that of helium is 
4, it is readily seen that this recoil radiation has a velocity a 
little less than one seventh of that of the alpha particles 
themselves (^MV^ =: ^mv^ ; or ^ X 222V2 = ^ X 4^^ ,* or 
55jV^=v^, or V=^v). But, as the electrons are so very 
much smaller than the helium atoms, the recoil radiation 
from the expulsion of the beta particles is of little practical 
importance. 

In this element radium we have an additional light thrown 
upon the subject of energy. It is found that the temperature 
of radium is always higher than that of surrounding objects, 
and that it gives out several million times as much heat as any 
chemical reaction known. Mme. Curie and Laborde calcu- 
lated that the heat from radium in an hour would raise its 
own weight of water from the freezing point to the boiling 
point and then keep it boiling more than a thousand years. 
The heat from the radium emanation is said by some actually 
to be over 3,500,000 times that of any known chemical re- 
action. This heat is undoubtedly, in its last analysis, from the 
intrinsic energy of its electrons, which apparently move faster 
than electrons of other tested substances. Hence, the greater 
radioactivity of radium and its greater tendency to disinte- 
grate, a fact of which we shall presently speak. An idea of the 
energy represented by a revolving electron may be formed 
from the fact that, according to a calculation lately made by 
Rutherford, it would require two million volts of electricity 
to set in motion an electron with a velocity of 98% that of 
light. This energy is regarded, therefore, as residing in the 
atom, as either kinetic or potential energy. The atom is, 
therefore, a vast infinitesimal storehouse of energy, caused by 
the enormous velocities of its multitude of these sub-atomic 
particles. An additional element in this intrinsic atomic en- 
ergy may be due to the passages of the charged particles 
through intense intra-atomic electric fields. 

3 RADIOACTIVITY DUE TO DISINTEGRATION OF ATOMS, SUC- 
CESSIVE DISINTEGRATIONS RESULTING IN DIFFERENT 
SUBSTANCES 

The above paragraph brings us to the more definite point to 
be made from our consideration of radium, the point for which 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 205 

the foregoing discussion was to prepare the way. Radioactive 
substances are continually disintegrating, and to some extent 
apparently also constantly being produced again. That disin- 
tegration or decomposition is the correct explanation of radio- 
activity was probably first suggested in a public way by Geoffrey 
Martin in Chemical NewSj May 2, 1902 (Vol. LXXXV., p. 
205). And in 1903 Rutherford and Soddy also published their 
conviction that radioactivity is due to disintegration. 

Thus it has more recently been calculated that a gram of 
radium gives off over 6X10^^ alpha particles (atoms of hel- 
ium) per second, while it gives off over 7X10^° beta particles 
(electrons) per second. And it should be stated that, though 
this reckless giving off of its substance goes on constantly, it 
would require upwards of sixteen centuries for this radiation 
to spend even half of its resources. It should also be said 
that the fact that helium and its allied elements are so uni- 
versally found, has been taken by some authorities to indicate 
that it is one of the by-products of earth's unmistakable dis- 
solution. 

What is true of radium as an element, is true of the whole 
family of elements to which radium belongs. There is an 
emanation in very minute quantities from radium salts that is 
continually given forth from the alpha particles, while radium 
is apparently continually being restored. And this emanation 
itself spontaneously disintegrates — giving off relatively great 
energy — and produces or results in helium, and a residue that, 
by giving off alpha or alpha and beta or possibly gamma particles, 
is transformed, according to Ramsey, Soddy, Rutherford, 
Mme. Curie, et al., successively into radium A, radium B, 
radium C, radium D, radium E and radium F. And it is 
believed that this radium F eventually results in lead, which 
has been called the ashes of the radium, after passing through 
its successive emanations or transformations of several thou- 
sand 3^ears. The genealogy of lead, as far as it has been 
traced, is thus shown to be the following: uranium, uranium 
X and Y, ionium, radium, emanation (niton), radium A, B, 
Ci and C2, D, E, F (polonium), lead. A very interesting dia- 
gram of the generations of the radium family is given in 
Soddy's valuable work. The Interpretation of Radium^ page 
205. This table illustrates almost even the very processes 
of disintegration. Rutherford gives a table of the same on 



2o6 Creation Ex Nihil o 

page 24 of his great work, Radioactive Substances and Their 
Radiations, 19 13, not to speak of other authorities. A sum- 
mary of the general results obtained by the researches of va- 
rious investigators will be of interest. 

Uranium 1(238), by giving off alpha rays (6X10^ yrs.), 
yields uranium 2; uranium 2(234), by giving off alpha rays 
(10^ yrs.), not separable from uranium i, yields uranium X; 
uranium X (230), by giving off beta and gamma rays (22 
days), yields uranium Y; uranium Y (230), by giving off beta 
rays (1.5 days), yields ionium; ionium (230), by giving off 
alpha rays (5X10* yrs. ?), yields radium; radium (226), by 
giving off alpha and slow beta rays (2000 yrs.), yields emana- 
tion (niton: Ramsey); emanation (222), by giving off alpha 
rays (3.8 days), yields radium A; radium A (218), by giving 
off alpha rays (4 minutes), yields radium B; radium 6(214), 
by giving off beta and gamma rays (26 minutes), yields rad- 
ium C; radium C-^ (214), by giving off alpha, beta and gamma 
rays (19 min.), yields radium Q^] radium 03(210), by giving 
off beta rays (1.4 minutes), yields radium D (radio-lead) ; rad- 
ium D(2io), by giving off slow beta rays (16.5 years), yields 
radium E; radium E(2io), by giving off beta and gamma rays 
(5 days), yields radium F (polonium); radium F(2io) ; by 
giving off alpha rays (136 days), yields radium G (lead ? 
206). 

The numbers within parentheses, after the names of the 
successive elements, indicate the atomic weights in terms of the 
weight of hydrogen, given in whole numbers for simplicity, 
while the approximate half-life period, or period of half-decay 
or half-disintegration, is given in parentheses after the words 
rays. It will be noticed, of course, that where a difference 
of 4 in atomic weights is found in two successive elements, 
it is due to the disintegration from the separation of alpha 
particles or helium atoms, whose atomic weight is 4. The 
loss in weight by the disintegration from the separation of the 
beta and gamma rays, because of their smallness, is, however, 
so small as to be negligible, and can therefore not thus be in- 
dicated. The so-called half-life period is given, because the 
disintegration apparently proceeds in such a way as to leave 
a residue at each successive step, which acts as a whole like the 
original amount. Thus, the disintegration might be regarded 
as reducing it to half the original; and this remaining half 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 207 

is similarly reduced to half, and this remaining half to half 
its amount, etc., indefinitely. The tabulation of uranium X 
and Y, and of radium C-^ and Cg, might be regarded as not 
strictly illustrating the process. 

It might be said that, though different eminent chemists 
have reached slightly different conclusions as to life periods — 
and other details — as to all the main facts all are in almost 
perfect agreement. Thus, the half-life period of radium, as 
found by Ellen Gleditch in 191 5, is 1642 years, while, ac- 
cording to Rutherford's latest determination, it is 1690 years. 
It is sufficient for our purpose, however, that the main prin- 
ciples have been removed from the realm of theory. 



4 DISINTEGRATION OR DEVOLUTION PROBABLY UNIVERSAL IN 

NATURE 

That disintegration is thus continually going on in these 
elements is, therefore, a demonstrated fact. That the same is 
true of some other groups of elements, such as that of the 
thorium and actinium families, has also been shown. The rate 
of disintegration varies apparently with the atomic weight 
of the elements. The heavier atoms have been shown to be, 
by their very nature, generally more unstable as to their re- 
volving electrons, and, therefore, throw off their electrons 
more readily. Hence, the disintegration or decomposition of 
the elements would ordinarily proceed from the heavier to the 
lighter elements. The fact of the disintegration of all so- 
called radioactive elements, was well expressed by Sir Ernest 
Rutherford, in an address at the Royal Institution, London, 
June 4, 1915, on Radiations from Exploding Atoms (Pub- 
lished in Nature, July i, 1915), as follows: "It is now well 
established that the radio-active substances are undergoing 
spontaneous transformation, and that their characteristic radia- 
tions — the alpha, beta, and gamma rays — accompany the act- 
ual disintegration of the atoms. The transformation of each 
atom results from an atomic explosion of an exceedingly vio- 
lent character, and in general results in a liberation of energy 
many million times greater than from an equal mass of mat- 
ter in the most vigorous chemical reaction" (Nature, Vol. 

XCV., p. 494). 

We are here, therefore, face to face with what is undoubt- 



208 Creation Ex Nihilo 

edly a process of disintegration and dissolution. And, as far 
as can be seen, there is an absolute loss of energy. And 
even the period of this process is measurable. And what is 
true of radioactive elements may be true of all other ele- 
ments. Thus it has been shown by Sir J. J. Thomson, that 
in a Crookes' tube other elements give off two kinds of hydro- 
gen and helium. In other experiments by Sir William Ram- 
say, et al., it has been shown that apparently all elements at 
least partially decompose into hydrogen. Therefore, that dis- 
integration Is probably going on in all elements, though less 
apparently so, Is altogether probable. If biologists speak of 
evolutioTij chemists can with considerably more certainty, and 
with apparently more truthfulness, speak of devolution. And, 
In the ultimate upshot, devolution rather than evolution is 
the great moving principle In the present universe. And, of 
this devolution, so-called evolution might be only the ascend- 
ing of a local wave that Is surely to break against the rocky 
barrier of the eternal shore to end in quiescence. 

Indeed, that all elements are thus undergoing a process of 
transformation and disintegration, is now generally accepted 
as a fact by physical chemists. Upon this point Soddy ex- 
presses himself as follows: ''The aspect which matter has pre- 
sented to us In the past Is but a consummate disguise, conceal- 
ing latent energies and hidden activities beneath an hitherto 
Impenetrable mask. The ultra-material potentialities of rad- 
ium are the common possession of all that world to which In 
our Ignorance we used to refer as mere inanimate matter" 
{The Interpretation of Radium, p. 225). 

It is thus seen that probably all substances spontaneously, 
or by an inherent law, tend to disintegrate from more complex 
to simpler forms, so that here truly we have the unmistak- 
able evidence that the universe Is in a process of ultimate dis- 
solution, accompanied with a corresponding loss or annihila- 
tion of energy. 

Moreover, the fact that the ultimate cause of atomic dis- 
integration has not yet been found, Is no argument against its 
being Itself the cause of radioactivity. Nor Is It an argument 
for the theory of chance. Causes before unknown are one 
after another being found, In explanation of phenomena which 
before some men tried to ascribe to so-called chance. And no 
one need draw the hasty conclusion, because this or that par- 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 209 

ticular phenomenon has not yet been traced to any particular 
cause, that It may not by further research be so traced. But 
the point for us here is, that the disinteffration is going on, 
however men might be inclined to explain It. It Is not here so 
much a question of why or cause as of fact or effect. 

Thus what Is called radioactivity Is due to the disintegrat- 
ing of the elements. This disintegration Is also undoubtedly 
going on In substances not manifestly radioactive. This disin- 
tegration unmistakably points to a temporal universe. And, 
even if it be contended that the universe might have thus been 
an evolution or a devolution from uranium or any other sub- 
stance, even the ether, this contention can not remove the 
necessity of a primal creation of matter as represented In 
that primal substance. As that supposed primal substance 
could not have been Infinite, for reasons already given, even as 
the material cosmos supposedly developed from It is not in- 
finite — as we have shown — It could not be eternal or absolute, 
and therefore uncreated. Therefore, even if uranium, or any 
other substance, were held to have been the primal substance 
from which the universe was developed. It would Itself have 
had to be created. Hence, we must assume back of the uni- 
verse, upon whatever theory of development one adopts, an 
almighty creative Power that called It Into being with all its 
potentialities, for the very purpose of evolving or developing 
such a universe. 



5 THE CORPUSCLE OR ELECTRON AND THE ULTIMATE NA- 
TURE OF MATTER 

We have already seen that the structure of the atoms of ele- 
ments is at least largely electronic. And, whether there is a 
positive particle similar to the negative particle or electron, 
we shall consider a little later. We shall now proceed to 
consider the electron with reference to the ultimate nature of 
matter. 

The tendency among scientists at present is to accept Sir 
J. J. Thomson's theory as to the corpuscle or electron; and 
thus the phenomena of radium have led to the development of 
the electrical theory of matter. Thomson showed that all 
electrons, under similar conditions, from atoms of whatever 



2IO Creation Ex Nihilo 

elements, are alike; that is, that all so-called matter in its ulti- 
mate elements may be considered as consisting of electrons of 
the same kind, not taking into consideration, however, a pos- 
sible positive element or nucleus. He showed that these elec- 
trons have mass and inertia; but he also showed that an elec- 
tric charge has these. Then he showed that the mass of the 
electron is apparently wholly electrical, and that, therefore, its 
inertia is electrical. Thus, step by step, the theory was ar- 
rived at that the corpuscle or electron is not material, as that 
term is understood, but that it is a charge of disembodied 
negative electricity, or only a negative charge of electricity. 

The conclusion has thus been arrived at that the mass of 
the electron is wholly electrical or electro-magnetic. It is 
accordingly held that, though for low velocities this mass does 
practically not vary, its calculated mass must increase as its 
velocity approaches that of light, and that there is even a 
definite law of this increase of mass with velocity. Indeed, its 
mass has theoretically been calculated for various velocities. 
Thus, at a velocity of half that of light, the mass has been 
calculated to be 1.12 times that for ordinary or normal veloci- 
ties. And, according to Kaufmann, the mass for .963 times 
the velocity of light should be 2.42. In line with this is the 
fact that inertia has been shown not to be a constant quantity. 
Sir J. J. Thomson and Oliver Heaviside have calculated that 
it increases with speed, when it approaches one tenth the 
velocity of light. And later experiments have confirmed this. 
And, according to Sir Oliver Lodge, the electrons suffer even 
a loss in inertia if they get too close to one another, or en- 
croach upon one another's magnetic field. This is also in line 
with the theory held by some men that the different atomic 
weights of different substances are due to a difference in 
their intrinsic energy or electronic revolutions. 

The electronic theory of electricity is somewhat in line with 
Franklin's theory, that electricity is of the nature of an all- 
pervading fluid. That fluid might thus be considered as made 
up of immaterial particles called electrons, flowing from the 
negative to the positive pole. Indeed, electricity is apparently 
simply the passing of electrons from atoms to atoms, conduc- 
tivity varying with the ease oi the passing of these electrons. 
A current of electricity might thus be spoken of as a process 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 21 1 

of equalization or adjustment somewhat analogous to that 
between connected waters of different levels. An electron 
(or electrons) attached to a molecule makes it a negatively 
charged molecule or ion. A molecule that has lost one or 
more electrons is spoken of as a positive ion. The separation 
of an electron from one atom and its attachment to another is 
probabl)^ due to its revolutions around the atom. Thus, it is 
readily seen that the mass of such an ion is slightly different 
from that of the atom from which it is formed. The anion, 
or negatively charged ion, is what might be called a neutral 
atom plus an added electron or electrons, while the cation, 
or the positively charged ion, is what might be called a neu- 
tral atom minus the separated electron or electrons. Thus 
atoms may also be spoken of as electro-negative, when they 
have more electrons than necessary for atomic balance, or 
electro-positive, when they have less electrons than necessary 
for such balance. 

It might also be said that chemical union is supposed to be 
due to the bringing together of atoms of different potential, 
that is, one set having at least one negative particle, for each 
atom, more than necessary for stable condition and the other 
having at least one less. These would thus neutralize each 
other in uniting. Thus, chemical affinity Is supposed to be 
electrical in Its nature ; and some have thought that gravita- 
tion might be due to some such electrical action through the 
ether. 



6 THE POSITIVE ELECTRICAL ELEMENT IN THE ATOM 

At this point It Is necessary for us to consider the hypotheti- 
cal positive nucleus, or field of positive electrification. As 
something neutralizes the motions of the flying electrons, the 
probability of the existence of a positive electrical nucleus, or 
perhaps of a number of nuclei or particles, so as to balance 
the negative particles, is very strong. Indeed, such a field or 
nucleus of positive electrification, by attraction to hold in bal- 
ance the electrons, which by their very nature would Indefi- 
nitely repel one another, is necessary to explain the Integrity 
of the atom. And this positive electricity Is also necessary to 
explain other phenomena of atomic action, Thus, In addition 



212 Creation Ex Nihilo 

to the negative electrons, there is supposed to be a positive ele- 
ment, within or around which these electrons revolve with 
terrific velocities. But whether this positive electricity is also 
apparently granular, or whether it is one body or mass, has 
not yet been determined, though various evidences seem to 
point to a granular structure akin to that of the electronic 
part of the atom. 

If this positive nucleus be not granular in the sense that it 
is composed of a number of minute particles similar to the 
electrons, which together constitute the negative element in 
the atom, it would seem almost certain that it must then con- 
sist of one corpuscle for each atom. And it might be that 
there is one of these corpuscles for a certain number of elec- 
trons, perhaps one for the equivalent of an hydrogen atom, 
so that the oxygen atom would have sixteen of them, etc. 
But whether there be one positive corpuscle for each atom 
or one for a certain number of electrons, that positive cor- 
puscle should be much larger than the electron in order to 
balance so many of them. And yet, as the electrons are so 
very small as compared with the atom, so also must this posi- 
tive corpuscle be rather small as compared with the whole 
atomic size. 

There are, indeed, men who hold that the positive element 
in the atom is not only granular or corpuscular in its nature, 
but that its corpuscles are even of a lower order of magnitude 
than the electrons, and that these form the basis of all wave 
motion. This theory is expressed by Marion Erwin in the 
following words: "The positive current is accounted for by 
flows composed of minute force rays in which particles of a 
lower order of magnitude than the electron constitute the 
traveling wheels which are at the basis of all wave motion. 
. . . The electric current is the motion of the train of elec- 
trons through space, the mechanical action involved being the 
forward motion of the electrons constituting the negative cur- 
rent, and the reaction flow of minute force rays constituting 
the positive current" {The Universe and the Atom, p. 235). 

If this were the correct theory as to the positive electrical 
element in the atom, its corpuscles of a lower order of magni- 
tude might be ether particles, and might thus constitute not 
only the basis of all subtle wave motions, but perhaps also 
of all matter, the electrons themselves perhaps consisting 



Evidence from the "Nature of Matter 213 

of these ether particles so arranged in this case as to make 
possible or produce the phenomenon known as positive elec- 
tricity. Thus light, electricity, magnetism, and perhaps gravi- 
tation, would be from the subtle action of these ultimate 
constituents of all so-called matter. 

Somewhat similar to the above is Larmor's theory of the 
electrons, that they are only strain-centres, or merely infinitesi- 
mal eddies, in the ether; as also a theory suggested by Sir 
Oliver Lodge, that they are only knots or twists or vortices 
in the ether. But, in either case, they would be equally 
evanescent. 



7 THE UNIVERSE NECESSARILY TEMPORAL ACCORDING TO 
THIS THEORY OF MATTER 

According to this theory of matter, all so-called elements 
of matter are composed of atoms, consisting of positive and 
negative electricity, the difference of these atoms in weight, 
etc., being due to different numbers and arrangements and 
revolutions of the electrons around a positive nucleus or 
nuclei. And these negative electrical corpuscles (electrons) 
are, under similar conditions, supposedly alike in all elements, 
as also apparently should the positive corpuscles be, the mass 
of at least the negative corpuscles, however, apparently vary- 
ing with velocities according to a fixed law. Hence, both the 
mass and the inertia of atoms would necessarily have to be 
electrical, that is, they would be due in their variations to 
electrical charges in motion. Thus, as the atoms in combina- 
tions constitute masses, or all that we call matter, it must 
follow that all so-called matter must, both in its elements and 
in its aggregate, be electrical In nature. Hence, all mass in 
the aggregate and all Inertia, as Indeed all energy, would, ac- 
cording to this theory, be electrical. But, as the mass of mat- 
ter Is equivalent to what Is known as its quantity, it is readily 
seen that this quantity varies, according to a definite law, with 
its velocity. And, therefore, so-called matter Is not a constant 
quantity, as has been supposed. This fact has even been shown 
experimentally by Heydweller, et al. Thus, also, energy is 
not a constant quantity. Moreover, as mass varies, according 
to some fixed law, with energy, the natural conclusion from 
thig theory of matter would be that matter and energy are 



214 Creation Ex Nihil o 

one. And this Is more and more being held by men of 
science. 

The above conclusion is somewhat in line with the mon- 
istic theory of Haeckel, et al.j that matter and energy are 
one, as the substance of all existence. And in this philosophic 
conception of monism there is no doubt thus a bold groping 
after the truth — as, indeed, all philosophy is thus a groping 
after the ultimate truth of the unity of all existence, and 
in so far is really monistic in its tendency. And this would 
seem all the more natural and to be expected, when the sub- 
ject is viewed from the higher plane of the origin of all 
things from one ultimate Cause. But, surely, as an explana- 
tion of the existence or ultimate origin of the universe, the 
Haeckelian, or any other, theory of monism itself proves noth- 
ing. And, furthermore, if we may anticipate, while the 
monism of Haeckel ends with matter and energy, or matter or 
energy, as the one existing substance, the truth as to ultimate 
unity must lie in the theistic conception of its unity in God, 
the only eternal existence, in Whom all other existence might 
be regarded as having eternally been a Divine potentiality. 

A word should here also be said as to a possibly different 
view of the nature of electricity and matter. While one can 
accept the theory that all electrons are only negative charges 
of electricity, it would for him not necessarily imply their 
non-materiality. He might rather regard electricity as the 
action or effect of the motions of the infinitesimally small 
divisions of the atom, called electrons, regarded as material 
corpuscles, handing on by successive separations, from atom 
to atom, the energy which is known under the term electricity. 
Thus, instead of regarding so-called matter as electrical and 
immaterial, a person might prefer to regard electricity as the 
flow of energy propagated by material electrons. Or, instead 
of regarding matter as electrical and immaterial, there is a 
sense in which one might regard electricity as material. And, 
if the electrons of negative electricity are matched by similar 
particles of positive electricity, and if these two in their ar- 
rangements and revolutions complete the atom, then one 
might, in a sense, say that all electricity is material and con- 
stitutes all materiality, or that all matter is constituted of 
electricity. 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 215 

But even this view of matter and electricity, or of the 
electrical nature of matter, would not alter our conclusions as 
to the temporality of matter. As already noted, it has been 
quite definitely established that the mass and inertia of the 
electron vary with velocity. Hence, even if the electron, or 
electricity, be regarded as material, our conclusion would 
stand. Upon this basis, matter would decrease with motion 
and with energy; and with the cessation of motion and energy 
it would cease to be. 

However, from the very fact that the mass and the inertia 
of the electron vary with velocity, as well as for other reasons 
so well pointed out by Thomson and others, the evidence from 
this scientific view-point rather points to the immateriality 
of the electron. Hence, upon whatever basis regarded, ac- 
cording to this theory of matter, it is temporal. 

In considering this theory of matter and electricity, or this 
electrical theory of matter, in its bearing upon the question 
as to the duration of the so-called physical universe, it should, 
therefore, need no further argument to prove that it would 
spell temporality. If it were accepted upon its face value, not 
only disintegration, but even real annihilation of matter with 
corresponding annihilation of energy in final cessation of all 
motion or vibration, toward which the universe is certainly 
tending, as well as of all potentiality, would necessarily re- 
sult. Thus, with the passing of motion and energy, all matter 
itself would also pass away. And the reverse might even be 
true, that the generation anew of energy might result in so- 
called matter. 

William Ostwald, in his famous paper on Overthrow of 
Scientific Materialism, 1895, even at that early period of these 
investigations of the newer chemistry and physics, declared 
that all we know about so-called matter is the energy it mani- 
fests, or its changes of energy, and that the existence of mat- 
ter is only a supposition required by our modes of thought, 
especially in their historic unfoldings. Other investigators 
have reached similar conclusions. 

Thus, the testimony of the latest science, as well as that of 
philosophy, is unmistakable; namely, that what is called the 
physical universe will finally end in dissolution and anni- 
hilation, even though left to its own inherent forces or laws, 



2i6 Creation Ex Nihilo 

and that, therefore, it must have had a beffinning in a creation 
by an external transcendent Power. 



V THE ETHER THEORY OF MATTER 

One of the as yet unsolved problems of science is the de- 
termination of the real nature of the so-called luminiferous 
ether. Heinrich Hertz, before the Sixty-Second Congress of 
German Naturalists and PhysicianSj Heidelberg, 1889, ex- 
pressed himself as of the conviction that a know^ledge of the 
real nature of the ether would mean to understand the ulti- 
mate nature of matter. He also expressed the belief that all 
matter is from the ether, that is, that the ether constitutes the 
ultimate substance of the material universe. His words, as we 
find them translated, are in part as follows: "Immediately 
connected therewith [the question of the nature of electricity] 
arises the momentous and primary question as to the nature 
of the ether, of the properties of the medium that fills all space, 
its structure, its rest or motion, its infinitude or finitude. It 
becomes every day more manifest that this question rises above 
all others, that a knowledge of what the ether is would re- 
veal to us not only the nature of the old 'imponderables,' but 
also of the old 'matter' itself and its most essential properties, 
weights and inertia. Modern physics is not far from the ques- 
tion whether everything that exists is not created from the 
ether" (Haeckel: Monism^ p. 103). 

Other scientists have come to similar conclusions. And 
there is much in recent scientific discoveries that points in this 
direction. And this may, of course, be acknowledged without 
accepting some fanciful theories of spontaneous creation, etc., 
of ponderable matter, in the interests of which this theory of 
the ether is often defended. 

It is not within our province to enter into the various the- 
ories of the ether, except in so far as they are related to the 
subject under discussion. A number of ingenious theories 
are reviewed in the History of the Theories of Aether and 
Electricity, 1910, by E. J. Whittaker, Royal Astronomer of 
Ireland, to whose work we would refer the reader for theories 
not referred to here. 

The necessity of postulating some very attenuated medium 
filling all space not occupied by ponderable matter, is, of 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 217 

course, felt by anj^ one who reflects on the transmission of 
light and heat from sun to earth — not to speak of electricity 
and gravitation. As light radiation through the ether exerts 
pressure, as was calculated by Clerk Maxwell nearly half a 
century ago, and as has been definitely demonstrated since, 
no one can doubt the existence of the ether. And, moreover, 
even reason would demand some medium for light-propagation, 
etc., as indeed for any other form of energy, for action at a 
distance, or without some intervening medium, is virtually 
unthinkable. 

Although the idea of the ether is quite an old one, it was 
not till the year 1804 that it was first somewhat developed 
by Dr. Thomas Young of England. But it was even then 
regarded by many as altogether too strange a speculative the- 
ory to deserve much consideration. And, hence, it took years 
till it gained many advocates. It gradually, however, gained 
more and more adherents, as it was more fully developed. At 
present it is, of course, a universally accepted theory of scienccc 



I THE MORE GENERALLY ACCEPTED THEORY AS. TO THE 
NATURE OF THE ETHER 

The ether is quite generally conceived of now as a very 
rare gaseous but imponderable substance, that pervades all 
space, even passing betw^een all the infinitesimal particles of 
so-called ponderable matter — as all matter must be porous. It 
is by transverse waves of the ether as a medium that light, 
heat, and electricity in wireless telegraphy, are definitely 
known to be transmitted. This is not, however, as if light, 
heat and electricity are transmitted as though they were things, 
but rather that these phenomena are due to the ether waves 
themselves. 

It is held by eminent investigators that the ether is granular 
in its nature, that is, that it is composed of infinitesimal parti- 
cles. This is the theory of the Russian chemist Mendeleef. 
And Haeckel is apparently in some passages inclined to accept 
this particle or granular theory of the ether. And to this, 
such phenomena as the transmission of light, heat, electricity, 
etc., through the ether, already noted, unmistakably point. 
The transmission of these by disturbances analogous to those 
of air for sound, and of water waves in concentric rings caused 



2i8 Creation Ex Nihilo 

by a pebble, plainly indicates that the constitutions of these 
three media are somewhat similar. As the air is a much rarer 
medium than water, but also granular in its nature, so no 
doubt is the ether a medium much rarer than air, but also 
granular in its nature. So-called matter, as known to us, may 
be spoken of as existing in a solid state, 2l liquid state, a. gaseous 
state, and a radiant state, as in the disintegrated atoms in 
electronic ra3^s. And, because of its association with radio- 
active substances, this last state might well be called "radiant 
matter," as Sir William Crookes, in a paper on Molecular 
Physics in High Vacua, read before the Royal Society of Eng- 
land, called the cathode-rays in a highly evacuated vessel. 
And, the supposition is quite well confirmed by various phenom- 
ena, among them the power of penetration, that the ether is a 
still rarer state of what one might choose also to call mat- 
ter. Thus the ether may be conceived of as supposedly pass- 
ing, or filling the spaces, between even the electrons, as the 
electrons apparently pass betw^een or through atoms, and as 
gases may penetrate liquids and liquids may pass between an 
aggregation of solids like a pile of bullets. 



2 THE ETHER AND SO-CALLED PONDERABLE MATTER ACCORD- 
ING TO THIS THEORY 

It is held by some eminent scientists, as already suggested, 
that not only do the even smaller particles of the ether pass 
between the particles of other matter, but that even these other 
particles themselves are composed of ether particles. Or, in 
other words, in its interstellar or ultimate state, the ether is 
thus supposed by some to be matter in its rarest form. It is 
this that gives us the name of this theory of matter. The 
ether would thus be the ultimate state or element {urstoff) 
of all so-called material substance. Thus, the great physicist 
J. G. Vogt considered what we call matter as in a sense con- 
densed ether, the atoms being individualized centres of ether 
concentrations. In the interests of his evolutionary monistic 
philosophy, Ernst Haeckel entertained somewhat similar 
views. But, as to the exact relation of the ether to ponder- 
able matter, Haeckel acknowledges that we are as yet in 
ignorance. 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 2 19 

In his Riddle of the Universe, pages 227 and 228, Haeckel 
considers the ether rather as a highly attenuated elastic jelly- 
like — and probably, however, continuous — substance, fully oc- 
cupying all space between ponderable matter, and, of course, 
to its ultimate particles. Its exact weight he regards as beyond 
experimental determination, though he seems inclined to ac- 
cept the weight determined from the energy of light waves, ac- 
cording to which its weight is about one fifteen trillionth 
(^^^ — 5) that of air. That is, its weight would be about 
^ — Tx that of water. Or water would weigh over 

II55 X 10 13 fe 

10^® times as much as the same volume of the ether. And 
this puts the density of the ether in nearly the same order of 
magnitude as that determined by Lord Kelvin and Graetz, the 
former calculating its density to be about lO"^^ that of water 
and the latter, about 9X10"^^ that of water. 

The ether is thus held by Haeckel to be one of the five 
conditions or stages of matter; namely, etheric, gaseous, fluid, 
viscous (in living protoplasm) and solid — a classification some- 
what like the one suggested above. He regards the ether as 
limitless and in eternal motion, which, in reciprocal action 
with mass-movement or gravitation, is supposedly the ultimate 
cause of all phenomena. So, also, J. G. Vogt regarded force 
as due to condensations and contractions of the primal sub- 
stance or ether. From this process are supposedly developed 
what he called pyknatoms, or material particles (like atoms), 
supposedly having will-movement, floating within the as yet 
uncondensed portion of the primal substance. 

Thus, according to this form of the theory, view^ed in a 
general w^ay, matter would be divisible into molecules, these 
generally into atoms, these into negative particles (electrons) 
and positive particles not yet definitely determined, and both 
these finally into what might be called etherons. And these 
etherons would probably be moving w^ithin the electrons and 
positive particles in infinitesimal orbits with wonderful veloci- 
ties, in a manner similar to that of the electrons within the 
atoms. Hence, all so-called matter would ultimately consist 
of ether, or ether would form or be the ultimate substance of 
all matter. Thus, what we call matter would be nothing but 



220 Creation Ex Nihil o 

condensations of the ether, in constant motion within the part 
not condensed. Or, matter would be only a manifestation of 
the ether. And these facts would, of course, be unchanged if 
the ether were considered to be like rarefied glass, whose con- 
densations in certain sections would supposedly constitute 
what we call matter — a theory that is merely a modification 
of the one given above. 



3 THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE TEMPORAL UPON THE BASIS OF 
THIS THEORY OF THE ETHER 

Upon the basis of this theory of the ether, the present uni- 
verse would necessarily be a temporal existence. Being sup- 
posedly a development from the ether, it would necessarily, by 
cessation of motion, or annihilation of energy, pass back at 
least into this elemental ether. Thus, LeBon is compelled to 
hold that, upon the basis of the ether theory of matter, the 
universe must have originated from the ether, and that, after 
running its course, it must again pass away. His theory in a 
nut-shell, as given by one of his best commentators, is as fol- 
lows: "We imagine the world to be formed at first of dif- 
fuse atoms of ether which, under the action of unknown 
forces, have stored energy. This energy, one of the forms of 
which is matter, dissociates and appears in various forms — 
electricity, heat, &c., so as to bring matter back to ether. 
'Nothing is created' signifies that we cannot create matter. 
'Everything is lost' means that matter disappears entirely, as 
does matter by its return to the ether. The cycle is there- 
fore complete. There are two phases in the history of a 
world: i. Condensation of energy under the form of mat- 
ter; 2, Expenditure of this energy" (LeBon: The Evolution 
of Forces, 1908, pp. 96-97)- 

LeBon holds that what gives apparent solidity to so-called 
matter, is really the great velocity of the vortex-rings formed 
in the ether. Matter would thus be nothing but rapidity of 
ether motion, and therefore a form of energy. And when 
that motion ceases, matter as we know it must cease to be. 
Energy is due to motion; and, in the concentration of the 
ether, as noted above, it would have been stored up for use 
in future dissociation or disintegration. And thus gradually, 
by spontaneous processes, all energy, even to the so-called 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 221 

Intra-atomic energj^ is apparently given forth and dissipated. 
And when this will have been completed, the material uni- 
verse will have ceased to exist. Certainly, if matter were 
only a manifestation or form of energ)', then with the mani- 
festation of energy so-called matter must have begun to exist, 
and with the cessation of energy it must cease to be. Thus, 
upon the basis of this theory of matter, the material universe 
would pass away, as also it must have begun to be. 

This fact is, moreover, also implied in the very granular 
nature of the ether, as well as in its constant motion or vibra- 
tion, for a granular and moving entity must necessarily be 
finite, as already pointed out. And, if it were contended, for 
the sake of argument, that it is not granular, even then, for 
the reason that it supposedly produces finite granular matter 
and for reasons elsewhere given, it must be finite. Indeed, the 
very force of. gravitation, which is probably due to very subtle 
and as yet unsuspected waves of ether, somewhat like those 
that produce the phenomena of light, etc., is itself another 
proof of the finiteness of that medium within which it operates, 
as well as of the so-called ponderable matter upon which it 
operates and whose positions and motions it controls. If the 
universe of matter and ether were infinite, it would have to 
rest in eternal equipoise. But, as it does not thus rest in bal- 
anced quiescence, it must be finite, and therefore by nature 
temporal, not only as a cosmic whole but also in its ultimate 
ethereal particles. 

Thus, in this wonderful arrangement for gravitation, even 
according to this theory of matter, often appealed to in at- 
tempting to explain away a creative Divinity, we have one 
more link in the chain of evidence for the finite and temporal 
nature of the universe , and for its creation by a Supreme 
Deity. 

4 THEORY MAKING THE ETHER THE ONLY, OR AT LEAST 
THE DENSER, MATERIALITY 

There is at least one other ingenious, and rather suggestive, 
theory as to the ether that should here be considered, to deter- 
mine whether it might In any way affect our conclusion as to 
the duration of the universe. This very Interesting theory 
makes the so-called imponderable ether the only material exist- 



222 Creation Ex Nihilo 

ence. According to this view, what we know as matter would 
have no real existence. This theory of the ether may be re- 
garded as based upon a view-point almost diametrically oppo- 
site that upon which the more generally accepted theory is 
based. According to this newer theory, the ether is the only 
real material, out upon which we look from so-called material- 
ity. According to the other and accepted view of the ether, 
matter is the denser medium, or the only real matter, out 
from which we look upon the more rarefied medium, which, 
compared with it, is practical non-materiality. 

This theory was somewhat fully developed by Professor 
Reynolds in his Sub-Mechanics of the Vniverse^ published in 
1903 by the Cambridge University Press. He considers the 
ether as an all-pervading liquid mass of indefinite extent, 
granular in its structure. And, what we call matter, in its 
particles, he regards as only empty cracks in silent nothingness, 
in constant motions within the ethereal fluid, the only real 
matter. The density of this ether has been estimated to be 
even about 2,000 times as great as lead. According to Rey- 
nolds' calculations, its ultimate spherical particles would be 
so small that their diameters would measure only 5.534X10"^^ 
centimeters. That is, it would require about 5X10^^, or 
500 quadrillion, of these ether particles side by side to meas- 
ure an inch; or, in a cubic inch there could thus be 125X10^^ 
ether particles. These would then correspond to the ultimate 
particles for which we above suggested the name etherons. 
Even as compared with the electrons these ether particles 
would be infinitesimally small, so small that it would require 
about 15 to 20 thousand ether particles side by side to measure 
as much as the diameter of an electron, or about 4 to 8 tril- 
lions to occupy the cubic space of one electron. How incon- 
ceivably larger, then, would an atom or a molecule be! And 
yet, even these molecules and atoms lie in the unfathomable 
depths far below the reach of the best modern microscope. 

Because of its vast extent, the pressure at any point within 
the ether, according to this theory, it is calculated, would be 
inconceivably great — about 10,000 tons per square centimeter, 
or 62,500 tons per square inch. Parts of matter, according 
to this theory, being only vacua or partial vacua within this 
ether, could thus, like mere waves, supposedly move unob- 
structed. However, as matter is supposedly a non-reality, we 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 223 

need not speak of its temporality. And the grained struc- 
ture of the ether would necessarily imply even its finiteness 
and temporal nature. 

This theory is similar to that of Whetham, who regards 
matter as only "a permanent strain form flitting through a 
universal sea of ether," and the ether as "a close-packed con- 
glomerate of minute grains in continual oscillation." It is, 
of course, readily seen that, as a strain implies a tendency 
to motion and adjustment and therefore to final relaxation 
and rest, the ultimate removal of this strain would mean the 
end of so-called matter. Moreover, the very grained nature 
of the ether, according to this theory also, would mean its own 
finiteness, dependence, and temporality, and that it must have 
been created. But the temporal nature of the ether itself 
we shall presently discuss more fully. 

Others regard matter as merely whirlpools in the universal 
ether, a theory which amounts to practically the same thing 
for our purpose, as those noted above. Thus, if matter were 
but whirlpools in the ether, quiescence would inevitably finally 
result, and at least so-called matter, from atom to star, would 
cease to be. 

5 THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE TEMPORAL AS TO BOTH ITS 
MATTER AND ITS ETHER 

Thus far we have more especially shown that, upon the 
basis of these theories of the ether, the physical universe as to 
so-called ponderable matter must necessarily pass away, as 
also it must have come into being in time. We have also 
briefly noted that, from its necessary finiteness, the ether it- 
self cannot be an eternal entity. We shall now, from the very 
nature of what might be called the essence of the ether, briefly 
show that an ether-constituted universe v/ould be temporal 
not only with reference to its so-called ponderable or material 
side, but also with reference to its imponderable or ethereal 
side. 

It is seen that the ether, which supposedly is the basic sub- 
stance of all so-called matter, according to this theory of mat- 
ter, is itself held to be a so-called imponderable immateriality. 
Like the electron of the electrical theory of matter, the sup- 
posed ultimate something (etheron) of the ether theory of 



224 Creation Ex Nihilo 

matter, is supposed to have mass and energy by virtue of its 
motion. In fact, in this subtle entity, energy and mass, or 
what might be called elemental matter, are generally held to 
be identical. The same reasoning that ends in the immaterial- 
ity of the electron, also ends in the immateriality of the ulti- 
mate element of the ether. And thus, in their aggregations in 
so-called matter, according to this theory, they would still, as 
such apparent materiality, remain immaterial. This fact was 
already foreshadowed in the electrical theory of matter, in 
what was said about the possible composite nature of the 
electron and the positive element of the atom. It should thus 
readily be apparent that, according to this theory of matter, 
no less than according to the electrical theory of matter, the 
physical universe in toto would be a temporal entity. 

If the electron (as also the positive element of the atom) is 
non-material, or nothing but energy, and if it itself consists of 
etherons, or of ether in whatever form — as would be the case 
according to the ether theory — then the ether constituent or 
component of the electron must necessarily be immaterial and 
nothing but energy. Hence, the argument in proof of a tem- 
poral universe upon the basis of the electrical theory of matter, 
would be equally valid upon the basis of this ether theory of 
matter. According to this theory of matter, therefore, with 
the annihilation of energy in final cessation of all motion and 
vibration, toward which the universe is unmistakably tending, 
a corresponding annihilation of what we know as matter must 
necessarily result. Thus, the physical universe must necessarily 
have an end. 

Moreover, as its present existence, whether viewed from 
the angle of so-called energy or from the angle of so-called 
matter, by the very law of inertia, implies some extrinsic power 
to account for its motions or vibrations, it must have had a 
beginning in a transcendent creation. And, if it be con- 
tended that what is spoken of as creation means simply the 
development of the material universe out of the elemental ether 
— as has often been done — even then the unavoidable ques- 
tion would arise unbidden before the mind, Whence the ether, 
and what the power back of that supposed evolution to cause it 
to evolve? 

Indeed, the very existence of the ether and its supposed 
evolution, upon such a theory, constitute the two positive 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 225 

witnesses by which the outstanding fact of their creation by 
an external power is definitely established. Hence, a supreme 
Creator there must have been, and be, back of the physical 
universe as His creature. And that supreme Creator is He 
Whom the Christian knows as God, by whatever name any 
other class of thinkers might choose to call Him. 

And, even apart from the inherent temporality of the uni- 
verse, as to both a beginning and an end, according to this 
ether theory of matter, there is another consideration from 
which it is also certain that the universe must be temporal. 
According to this ether theory, even the universal whole is 
finite, for the unanswerable reasons elsewhere given. Hence, 
as we have already shown that a finite entit>' cannot be self- 
existent, and as it can, therefore, not be eternal, the physical 
universe, also from this view-point of the ether theory of mat- 
ter, is a temporal entity. Therefore, however viewed, it must 
have had a beginning, as also it must have an end. And, 
therefore, it must have come into being by the voluntary act 
of a supreme Deity. 

6 THE ETHER AND ENERGY MONISM's CREATIVE DIVINITY 

In accordance with his theory of a universal evolution — 
including even the prim^ary elements as historic products of 
an evolutionary process — Haeckel inclines to the view that 
the ether itself is a kind of creative divinity working upon or 
in ponderable matter as creative material, which is itself evolved 
by condensation from the ether. The statement of Haeckel 
upon this point is as follows: "The two fundamental forms 
of substance, ponderable matter and ether, are not dead and 
only moved by extrinsic force, but they are endowed with 
sensation and will (though, naturally of the lowest grade) ; 
they experience an inclination for condensation, a dislike of 
strain; they strive after the one and struggle against the 
other" {The Riddle of the Universe, p. 220). To this he 
adds that there is no space not filled with ether matter or ether, 
and that all action is by immediate contact or by the media- 
tion of the ether. With him, atoms and molecules have sensa- 
tion, inclination and feeling, resulting in combinations, etc., 
even as the sexes are drawn together. 

There seems, however, to be a confusion of ideas or words 



226 Creation Ex Nihilo 

in Haeckel's various statements upon this point. He appa- 
rently uses ether, energy, and even spirit, for the same thing, 
This makes his so-called religious position at first somewhat 
difficult to determine — if it can, indeed, be spoken of as a 
religious position. But it should deceive no one upon careful 
examination. He seems to labor in search of an adequate cause 
of the physical universe. Reason drives him toward some 
unifying eternal, infinite something as fundamental to all 
existence. And this he finds, to his own satisfaction, in a 
monistic conception of the universe. Thus, all is of one and 
all is one — one eternal infinite substance under different mani- 
festations. To the ether, as apparently substance in its ulti- 
mate nature, he ascribes sensation and will; and hence he 
somehow regards it as spirit, and therefore as energy. But 
his conception of spirit or will as being at the foundation of 
the universe, is far from that of the Christian. Some of his 
utterances must therefore be carefully weighed to avoid mis- 
interpretation. The following words will illustrate this point: 
*'We hold with Goethe that matter cannot exist and be 
operative without spirit, nor spirit without matter. We ad- 
here firmly to the pure, unequivocal monism of Spinoza: 
Matter, or infinitely extended substance, are the two funda- 
mental attributes, or principal properties, of the all-embrac- 
ing essence of the world, the universal substance" (Ibid., p. 
8). Thus, all physical and chemical operations, in their last 
analysis, are made to be spiritual or mental, as, conversely, all 
mental and spiritual operations are held to be physical or 
chemical. Physical processes, chemical processes, mental proc- 
esses or thinking, consciousness — what a confusion of ideas! 

It might also be said that Herbert Spencer was inclined to 
a similar exalted conception of the ether, as expressed in the 
following words: "The only supposition having consistency 
is that that in which consciousness inheres is the all-pervading 
ether. This we know can be affected by molecules of matter 
in motion and conversely can affect the motions of molecules; 
as witness the action of light on the retina" (First Principles, 
p. 20i). 

Of course, when a conscious Personality back of nature 
as its First Cause is denied, another cause must be sought 
somewhere, for a cause there must be. And thus it is only 
natural to look for it in the most subtle, as apparently the 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 227 

ultimate, thing in physical nature, of which man knows. In- 
deed, the very mysteriousness of the ether is its best recommen- 
dation to be exalted into an ultimate cause, or a subtle divinity. 
To these speculators the ether is, therefore, more like what 
God is to the Christian than anything else they can conceive 
of. 

Thus, the ether theory becomes to rpany philosophers and 
men of science somewhat of an article of faith. This is even 
acknowledged by Haeckel, as witness the following words: 
"Religion itself, in its reasonable forms, can take over the 
ether theory as an article of faith, bringing into contradistinc- 
tion the mobile cosmic ether as creating divinity, and the inert 
heavy mass as material of creation" {Monism, pp. 24-25). 
And, of course, the learned philosopher must be understood 
to incline to the view that this relation between "ether as 
creating divinity" and "mass as material of creation," is itself 
one of actual creator and creature, in the sense that the ether 
"originally engendered the heavy mass" (Ibid.j p. 29). 

Thus, the ether is his equivalent of the Christian's God, of 
Whom the universe of ponderable matter is the creature. 
There is this deviation, however, from the Christian concep- 
tion of primal creation, that with Haeckel this creation is not 
a creation by a supreme absolute Will ex nihilo, but by a 
blind evolutionary emanation of this ethereal divinity itself. 
This emanation supposedly resulted in a universe-material of 
one kindj from which spontaneously evolved all the different 
so-called chemical elements, from which in further evolu- 
tion has evolved, and is still evolving, the present cosmic uni- 
verse. Thus, in accordance with this monistic philosophy, the 
whole material universe is of one ultimate substance, and that 
substance is the emanation of its blind ethereal divinity, with 
which it is, therefore, supposedly likewise ultimately of one 
substance. 

This theory, apart from its theistic or religious aspect, is 
certainly a bold guess at some possibly ultimate truth. And, 
as to its material side, the more recent discoveries of chemistry 
have gone a long way to confirm some of its elements. But, 
as a theological explanation of the ultimate origination of 
things, it has no value. Its implied blind Chance back of the 
present orderly^ universe cannot account even for Haecker3 



228 Creation Ex Nihilo 

theory, or for the book In which ft was given to the world. 
I cannot deny the existence of some learned personality back 
of his book, nor can he deny the existence of an infinitely 
greater personality back of the ordered universe. Indeed, by 
the very laws of thought and by his own religious instincts, 
the monistic philosopher is forced back to some sort of divinity 
and some sort of creative process. And, as these are 
infinitely below those set forth through His servants by 
One Who, from every available evidence, alone knows, 
it would be far grander, and even more honest, openly 
to accept as final the declaration of that One, Who Himself 
spake and it was done^ rather than to hide from Him behind 
mere theories of speculative philosophy. 

Indeed, in Haeckel's own premises of reasoning the im- 
possibility of accounting for cosmic nature without a super- 
natural sentient Being, is only too evident. In the passage 
from page 220 of The Riddle of the Universe, cited above, 
he speaks of "the two fundamental forms of substance, ponder- 
able matter and ether" as endowed with what he calls "sensa- 
tion and will." It is from this endowment as a potentiality 
that the cosmic universe supposedly evolved. But, this very 
assumption of an endowment of the ether is suicidal to his 
own theory of the self-sufHciency of "ether as creating divin- 
ity," the divinity that supposedly "originally engendered the 
heavy mass." That very endowment of the ether as a sup- 
posed potentiality for the evolution of the physical cosmos in 
its mass and energy, must necessarily imply the previous ex- 
istence of some power, or rather Personality, that thus en- 
dowed it. Hence, even Haeckel's own premises Imply a super- 
natural Creator back of physical nature as a creature. 

Moreover, it would not help matters to assume back of 
that ether some still more primary substance or energy, from 
which it might have derived as an endowment that supposed 
potentiality for the evolving of the cosmos. Such an assump- 
tion of some still more primary element than the ether, would 
immediately necessitate the postulatlon of a something still 
more fundamental, and so on indefinitely. And yet, such 
could not continue infinitely, as there could be no infinite 
number of such successive steps. Such reasoning would be as 
unsatisfying as was the reasoning of those who held that the 
earth rested by its four corners upon the backs of four huge 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 229 

elephants, or that it somehow rested upon the shoulders of 
some mythical Atlas, as those elephants or that god Atlas 
would necessarily have to rest upon something still more funda- 
mental. Indeed, such reasoning, instead of accounting for 
ultimate existence, only deepens its mystery. It does not 
reach the ultimate; it only pushes it back into still greater 
mysteriousness. The only possible cause, beyond which there 
would be no need of another, must be an infinite Will, or a 
spiritual Personality. Such an undivided and indivisible en- 
tity alone can be infinite; only an infinite entity can be self- 
existent; only a self-existent entity can be eternal; only an 
infinite, eternal, self-existent entity can be a creator in the 
absolute sense; and only in such an ultimate reality as a pure 
cause, can reason rest and be satisfied. 

And yet, this very failure of mere speculative philosophy, 
in its attempt to explain existence, is itself a groping after that 
something that does have existence in reality; namely, the only 
eternal reality, the omnific Deity. And, indeed, this unsuccess- 
ful search for ultimate truth, is itself thus an evidence of its 
existence. And thus, the final testimony of the speculative 
philosopher, as well as that of the pure physical scientist, con- 
firms our conclusion; namely, that the universe is a creation 
ex nihilo by a transcendent Personality. 



7 THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE ETHER THEORY 
OF MATTER 

Upon the basis of this theory, a temporal universe, created in 
the beginning ex nihilo^, and finally again dissolving or passing 
in nihilum, would thus stand out as virtually a demonstrated 
fact. Thus, back of its origination and energy it must have 
had Will, an infinite Personality, as its Cause. Hence, all 
things must have their cause and subsist in Will alone, as the 
only ultimate eternal entity, as already noted. This thought 
is thus also expressed by Alfred Weber: "Modern science has 
reduced matter to force, and Leibniz very aptly said: No 
substance without effort. Now, to make effort means to will. 
If effort constitutes the essence of matter, the will must be 
the basis, the substance, and the generative cause of matter. 
On the other hand, effort is also the source of perception, for 
there can be no perception without attention, and no attention 



230 Creation Ex Nihilo 

without effort. Perception proceeds from will, and not vice 
versa. Hence, the will is, in the last analysis^ the higher unity 
of Force and idea ... it is being in its fulness. Everything 
else is merely a phenomenon" (History of Philosophy, tr. 
Frank Thilly, pp. 600-601). One might not wish to go the 
full length of the conclusions involved in this statement; but 
it undoubtedly expresses a profound truth as to the cause of 
matter and therefore of the existing universe. 

The evidence for a temporal universe is truly cumulative 
in its nature. And the ether theory of matter, as above out- 
lined, is a weighty addition to that cumulative evidence. And, 
whether we adopt or accept one form of the theory or another, 
the final conclusion must inevitably be the same: the universe 
will have an end, and it also had a beginning. Therefore, it 
must have been created in time; and that creation must have 
been out of nothing, by a transcendent Will. 



VI CONCLUSION IN SUMMARY: THE UNIVERSE 
TEMPORAL ACCORDING TO ALL THESE 
THEORIES OF MATTER. 

From the above consideration of the five principal theories 
of matter, it is seen that, upon the basis of any and all of 
them, the physical universe is by nature temporal. It had a 
beginning, and it will have an end. Matter itself slowly dis- 
integrates and energy ultimately disappears. The law of the 
conservation of matter is thus no more a demonstrated fact 
than that of the conservation of energy, of which we have also 
spoken. Sir Oliver Lodge has truly said, "This law [that of 
the conservation of matter] has been called the sheet-anchor 
of chemistry, but it is very far from being self-evident; and 
its statement involves the finding of a property of matter 
which experimentally shall remain unchanged, although nearly 
every other property is modified" {Life and Matter, p. 21). 
And of similar import are the following words by another 
man of science: "It is a fundamental principle of the theory 
of evolution, . . . that matter itself is eternal. . . . But we 
doubt whether any physical philosopher of the present day 
would be satisfied to accept any demonstration of the eternity 



Evidence from the Nature of Matter 23 1 

of matter. . . . He would . . . admit that his experience no 
more sufficed to settle the question than the observation of an 
animal for a single daj^ would settle the question of the dura- 
tion of its life, or prove that it had neither beginning nor 
end" (Newcomb: Side-Lights of Astronomy, pp. 58-59). 

As has been seen, energy and matter, according to some of 
the greatest scientists, are so related as to exist together and 
to disappear together. Thej^ cannot really be separated. With 
the dissolution of molecular structures the unstable atomic 
elements, with their intra-atomic energy, remain. These, in 
their ultimate nature, are held to be energy. And, with the 
dissolution of the atomic structures the intra-atomic energies 
must disappear. Thus, so-called matter is constantly being 
transformed into the ultimate energy at the foundation of all, 
while that energy will itself as certainly cease. Therefore, 
though by artificial methods or means man cannot annihilate 
matter, nor destroy energy, but can only change both, by na- 
ture's own inherent forces the destruction of both is con- 
stantly taking place. Though we cannot destroy or simplify 
the atom, by the inherent forces of radioactivity this is cease- 
lessly being done. And, what is true of the atomic structure, 
is true of nature as a cosmic whole. 

Nor can we create either matter or energy. And yet, not 
only does the temporal nature of matter imply its beginning or 
existence and therefore a creation, but by other evidence more 
direct is this almost incontrovertibly demonstrated. Indeed, 
very recently some scientists have come to the conclusion that 
matter may possibly even now be in process of formation or 
creation, by inherent forces in nature, as also it is even now 
by similar forces in process of destruction. 

But even if this were the case, it would surely not explain 
away a creative Deity. If it were true, it would simply mean 
that nature was originally so endowed with the necessary 
forces as to make these supposed processes possible. And, of 
course, their ultimate Cause would have to be none other than 
the One to Whom all other theories conduct the honest in- 
vestigator and searcher after truth. And, indeed, upon the 
basis of such a theory of present creative and destructive 
processes, the temporal nature of the universe would become all 
the more evident and certain. Temporality everywhere, not 
only as to a beginning but also as to an end, would thus flash 



232 Creation Ex Nihil o 

forth from every point of the universal whole. And, of 
course, such successive creations and destructions could not 
form an endless cycle; and therefore as a whole the universe 
must have had a beffinning and would have to have an end. 
Moreover, even the least balance in favor of the destructive 
process would hasten universal annihilation. 

Furthermore, it is almost certain that the present energy 
of the universe is the result or eifect of this destructive or dis- 
integrating process of so-called matter. Thus, while radium 
is disintegrating there is a manifestation of energy, and when 
disintegration has been accomplished, its energy has ceased. 
So, as electricity is only the passing of electrons from atoms 
to atoms, it, too, is the result of disintegration. And, when 
that disintegration has gone to the point of equalization or 
equilibrium, the current stops and energy disappears. And, 
if the electron is nothing but energy, with its passage in elec- 
tricity, etc., there must be a dematerialization of matter. What 
we call matter would thus be only the manifestation of energy, 
and would therefore disappear when that energy would be 
spent. 

It is, therefore, incontrovertibly true that, according to any 
form of the kinetic theory of matter, the universe would neces- 
sarily be a temporal entity, and that with the equalization or 
ultimate dissipation of its energy, or of all its motions, it 
would certainly wholly pass away. So also upon the basis of 
any theory of matter whatsoever, because in toto it must 
necessarily be a finite entity, the universe must be temporal and 
must, therefore, have been created by a transcendent Creator. 



CHAPTER VIII 

EVIDENCE FROM DESIGN IN NATURE, NECES- 
SARILY IMPLYING ITS CREATION IN TIME 
BY A DESIGNING CAUSE OR CREATOR, 

All nature, both in its cosmic unity and in its every detail, 
appears as an effect or as an event. From electron to star, 
everything appears and acts as part of a mighty machine, 
adapted and related to everything else, each fitting into its ov^n 
suited place in the complete and perfect w^hole. Thus, in 
everything, from particle to universe, from dead matter to the 
human soul, design is clearly manifest, that it was made 
for a specific place and purpose. Indeed, it w^ould be in- 
finitely more difficult to believe the universe to have thus eter- 
nally existed or to have developed by so-called chance, than that 
it v^^as created by a personal Divinity with design, in time. 
Thus, the great whole exists upon a sublime plan, so that to 
the very last element it must have had its existence first as an 
idea in the mind of a Designer, a creative Deity. 

In this chapter we shall consider this evident design in na- 
ture, as further absolutely unmistakable evidence that the 
universe has not existed from eternity, but that it is the 
product of a supreme intelligent Will. 

As we have said, the universe exists upon a mighty plan. 
All its parts are related to all other parts with mathematical 
precision. The mighty velocities and revolutions of the heav- 
enly bodies are according to rigid mathematical formulas. 
The heavenly bodies are weighed and balanced against one 
another with more accuracy than could be attained in the 
laboratory with the most delicate scale. Their weights, dis- 
tances, orbital velocities, etc., are more delicately measured and 
adjusted than in the most perfect clockwork. Indeed, without 
this, the calculation of eclipses, etc., would be impossible; all 
science and mechanics would be impracticable. And, on the 

233 



234 Creation Ex Nihilo 

other hand, with a perfect knowledge thereof, men would be 
able to calculate, for any definite past or future time, the place 
and the velocity of any body in all the countless stellar hosts. 
It might even be said that, as everything is affected by every- 
thing else, if man could know all the forces and circumstances 
that enter into a coming avalanche, or even Into the growth 
and fall of an apple, the same might be definitely foretold for 
any future time. So, conversely, under similarly ideal con- 
ditions j from any such individual object or event the whole 
complex series of objects or events that preceded or affected it, 
might be calculated. Or, it might be said that from any one 
object all other objects might be determined. 

Thus, as all affect each and each aifects all, both successively 
and simultaneously, as more fully shown in a previous chap- 
ter, all are theoretically in each and each are In all. The 
whole, even to the ultimate electron of the last star, Is, in 
accordance with an exquisite unity of design and purpose, 
bound together and mutually related and interdependent in 
one mighty, but no less dependent, universe. This would not, 
however, preclude the possibility of Interference, or of direct 
operation, on the part of its absolute Cause or Creator. 

To say, on the contrary, that the universe is self-evolved, as 
is often asserted, is as absurd as to say that a stone is self- 
moved. A self-evolved or self-existent entity must necessarily 
be infinite, and even to such the word self-evolved would not 
apply. As something must have been first and self-existent. It 
must have been infinite and absolute, or else It would have been 
finite and therefore necessarily related to something else. And, 
as that first something was infinite It must have been the only 
Infinite, as there could be but one infinite existence, else they 
would In a sense mutually exclude each other. This Infinite 
must, therefore, have been the cause of all else, a conclusion 
also arrived at before. 

Again, to an Infinite there cannot be any evolution pos- 
sible, by the wtxy nature of an infinite, already pointed out. 
An Infinite is unlimited, absolute, complete. It cannot, there- 
fore, become more unlimited, more absolute, more complete. 
Therefore, as evolution means a development toward greater 
completeness, etc., an infinite cannot evolve or be evolved. 
Therefore, as the universe is supposedly evolving. It cannot 
be infinite, a fact already demonstrated; and, as it cannot be 



Evidence from Design in Nature 235 

infinite, it cannot be self-existent; and, as it cannot be self- 
existent, it cannot be self-tvolved; and, as it cannot be self- 
evolved, it must have been created, or it must have been or 
be evolved by a Power beyond itself. And such supposed 
evolution must necessarily have been preceded by an adequate 
involution to make it possible. And that Power back of such 
involution and evolution must have been self-existent and there- 
fore infinite, and therefore the cause of all else, a conclusion 
also reached by another process of reasoning. By that Power 
the universe must thus have first been involved with all the 
potentialities that were, by the supposed evolution through 
secondary causes, to result in a completed universe — a goal 
apparently not yet attained, if we accept the testimony of 
philosophic scientists themselves. 

Thus, in answer to the question what caused and what 
maintains existence. Sir Oliver Lodge makes the following 
suggestive remark: "Of our own knowledge we are unable 
to realize the meaning of origination or of maintenance; all 
that we ourselves can accomplish in the physical world is to 
move things into desired positions, and leave them to act on 
one another. Nevertheless our effective movements are all 
inspired by thought, and so we conceive that there must be 
some Intelligence immanent in all the processes of nature, for 
they are not random or purposeless, but organized and beauti- 
ful" {The Substance of Faith, p. 70). 



I THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE IDEA OF DE- 
SIGN IN NATURE ANSWERED 

It has been stoutly denied by many scientists that there is 
any design in nature. This view is dogmatically stated by 
Haeckel in the following words: "The development of the 
universe is a monistic mechanical process, in which we dis- 
cover no aim or purpose whatever; what we call design in 
the organic world is a special result of biological agencies; 
neither in the evolution of the heavenly bodies, nor in that of 
the crust of our earth do we find any trace of a controlling 
purpose — all is the result of chance" ( The Riddle of the Uni- 
verse, pp. 273-4). 

And not only has the presence of design in nature been 



236 Creation Ex Nihilo 

denied, but also any act of an omnipotent Creator, especially 
His use of meanSj has been denied. On this point, John Stuart 
Mill makes the following declaration: ''It Is not too much 
to say that every Indication of Design In the Kosmos Is so 
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For 
what Is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of 
means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance — the need 
of employing means — is a consequence of the limitation of 
power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his 
end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means 
implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action 
of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are 
not means, but an incumbrance. . . . Wisdom and contri- 
vance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there Is no 
room for them In a Being for whom no difficulties exist" 
(Three Essays on Religion: Theism, 1884, PP- 176-7). 

This objection of Mill, if analyzed, leads, however, to a 
counter objection to his objection. If Mill could contend 
that "Design in the Kosmos is so much evidence against the 
omnipotence of the Designer," we contend that his contention, 
by just that much, limits that omnipotence. An omnipotence 
that Is not able to work by design or through means is not 
omnipotent. Indeed, a being (God) that would not be able 
to operate through means would be as truly limited, though 
in a different way, as a being (man) that Is not able to 
operate without means. If Mill had said that necessary means 
or design would limit omnipotence, he would have spoken 
correctly. Man is limited by necessary means. And, if de- 
sign or means In creation were necessary with the Creator, He, 
too, would be limited. But that is precisely what we con- 
tend is not the case. However, Mill inadvertently speaks of 
"the necessity for contrivance — the need of employing means"; 
and thus he really nullifies his own argument against de- 
sign. It is, therefore, Mill who limits the Creator's omnip- 
otence by design or means, by reading Into them necessity on 
the part of the Creator; but the mere use of means by the 
Creator, and the presence of design in nature, do not thus 
limit Him. 

On the contrary, the very necessary freedom of an absolute 
Creator implies freedom of choice in the method of creation. 
And to choose means, after He had first created them, would 



Evidence from Design in Nature 237 

only be a glorifying of the means in the further operations of 
creation. In illustration of this fact, tve would point to the 
method of Jesus of Nazareth in the raising of Lazarus. He 
first directed men present to remove the stone from the grave, 
because this could be done by ordinary human agency or 
means. Then, with an exercise of His own power, he called 
Lazarus to life, because this could not be done by merely hu- 
man means. And then he directed the men to remove the 
bands, etc., because this again could be done by them. And 
this, surely, was a method of choice and not of necessity. Al- 
though this is not exactly parallel to the operation of the 
Creator as a pure Spirit in using already created means, it is 
certainly closely analogous to it. Indeed, there are many 
things that a thoughtful parent requires a child to do that 
he could better do himself without the child's help, while other 
things he does because the child could not do them. But this 
does not limit the parent in so far as the cooperation of the 
child is concerned. Neither does the one voluntary or chosen 
method of the Creator, any more than any other chosen method, 
limit His omnipotence. 

And, as for desiffu, no one should deny design to an infinite 
mind any more than to a finite mind. To deny design would 
be equivalent to denying intelligence. To deny intelligence 
would be equivalent to denying mind. And, to deny mind 
would be to deny personality. And, an impersonal Creator 
would not only be an impossibility, as already noted, but it 
would even be a contradiction in terms, as the very name 
Creator implies personality, and a personality that is con- 
scious. 

Moreover, here, too, our very limitation makes the full con- 
ception of an infinite and absolute Creator impossible, as that 
limitation unconsciously impels the thinker to ascribe limitation 
to the Absolute. But the fallacy in Mill's argument, of course, 
is in making the Creator's operations, in accordance with de- 
sign or wisdom and through means, a necessity in the sense in 
which means to us are a necessity. In speaking of design in 
connection with the Creator's work, we must, of course, not 
lose sight of the fact that we cannot separate design from act 
in an infinite and eternal Being. A chronological sequence 
of these two things, in the sense in which it exists in man, 
there surely cannot be to an eternal or timeless Personality. 



238 Creation Ex Nihilo 

This denial of the existence of design or purpose in nature 
has, of course, been the case especially with reference to liv- 
ing organisms. Paley's famous argument has not only been 
rejected as valueless, but it has even been ridiculed. But the 
arguments against design have been based partly upon mis- 
apprehension or a confusion of ideas, and partly upon un- 
proved assumptions. The terms Designer and design as ap- 
plied to Deity must not be considered as exactly parallel to 
the same terms as applied to man. The Deity is not a cor- 
poreal conditioned Being; and the ideas of design and act 
cannot be separated in an absolute, eternal, spiritual Personality. 
But, even if Paley's argument be considered open to the charge 
that it attempts to prove too much and that it is too material- 
istic in its nature, it must nevertheless stand as a highly sug- 
ffesttve explanation of the ways of God in nature. 

And, to say that to speak of desiffn is merely begging the 
question, as by the very idea of that term we already imply 
a designer, is an argument of straw. One might with equal 
force object to Darwin's term "natural selection," by arguing 
that by that term he implied a selector and therefore purpose 
or design. Indeed, it is exceedingly difficult to get away from 
terms that express human ideas which seem to be almost uni- 
versally instinctive. Our earth-developed language is alto- 
gether inadequate to express totally transcendental ideas. We 
cannot, by unenlightened minds, rise above ourselves and the 
earth, with the naturally associated ideas and language. And 
even to select a term of passive meaning, like "survival of the 
fittest," does not altogether rid the subject of difficulty. To 
speak of a survival of the fittest is merely to assume that 
they are the fittest that survive. 

We are, therefore, content to retain the old word design 
as applied to nature, until a better word will have been fur- 
nished to express that definite idea for which we use the term. 
And, surely, to deny design in nature in the sense of purpose 
or order, in which it has been used, is to deny the very ideas 
of purpose and order even in the thoughts and works of man, 
nature's crown. And to deny them there, on the plea that 
man is not a mentally and physically free agent, is to make 
our life an illusion. Then, all the arguments of these objec- 
tors to a designing Deity, are also nothing but illusion and con- 
fusion. Sir Oliver Lodge well said, "The essence of mind is 



Evidence from Design in Nature 239 

design and purpose. There are some who deny that there is 
any design or purpose in the universe at all: but how can that 
be maintained when humanity itself possesses these attributes?" 
(Life and Matter ^ p. 102.) And, as to human design, as 
against the idea of materialistic automatism, the same author 
says, ''Matter is the vehicle of the mind, but it is dominated 
and transcended by it" {Ibid., p. 107). And Sir William 
Thompson, in his address before the British Association, 1871, 
as published in Nature, Volume IV., declared for design in 
the following emphatic words: "I feel profoundly convinced 
that the argument of design has been greatly too much lost 
sight of in recent zoological speculations. [Here is a brief 
comment on Paley's Natural Theology.'] . . . Overpower- 
ingly strong proofs of intelligence and benevolent design lie 
all around us, teaching us that all living beings depend on one 
ever-acting Creator and Ruler" (p. 270). And no less em- 
phatic are the following words of Samuel Butler, at the con- 
clusion of his work on Evolution Old and New, 191 1, "It 
has been the object of the foregoing work to show that those 
who take this line are wrong, and that evolution not only 
tolerates design, but cannot get on without it" (p. 408). 

II DESIGN MANIFEST IN EVERY LIVING 
ORGANISM 

It is too evident to require argument that living organisms 
are constructed and adapted for specific ends. Every organ or 
limb is a tool to perform a definite function. Paley long ago 
called attention to the eye of the eagle as compared with that 
of the owl, and to the wonderful poise of the human head for 
universal motion, and to the wonderful binding down, by a 
ligament, of the tendons running from the leg to the foot, 
etc. To say that these are only cases of spontaneous adapta- 
tions or appetency does not explain them. The fact is that 
the binding down of the tendons is in direct opposition to any 
such supposed spontaneous action. By spontaneous action, in- 
stead of being bound down they would tend to be more and 
more released. Many other equally striking cases might be 
cited, but these are enough to illustrate our point. 

Moreover, the provisions of pleasure and pain are too mani- 
fest to need more than a passing notice. The very fact that 



240 Creation Ex Nihilo 

an act is pleasurable or painful has the purposive effect to 
cause a desire to repeat or to avoid it. The sensations of 
pleasure and pain are inseparably connected, as secondary 
causes, with the preservation of the individual, as well as of the 
race. They are teleological means to a greater end. And the 
provisions of sex, as complex means existing even in different 
or separate individuals for the propagation and perpetuation of 
the species, afford an unanswerable evidence for a designing 
Mind, as ultimately superintending the multiform operations 
of nature. 

In a late work by Alfred Russel Wallace {The World of 
Life), design is elaborately and conclusively demonstrated from 
various organisms. His argument from birds and insects for 
"an organizing and directive life-principle," an organizing 
mind (pp. 309, sq.), is unanswerable. And so his chapter on 
Mystery of the Cell (pp. 361, sq.) should bring conviction 
not only to every modern doubting Thomas, but even to the 
avowed atheist. Indeed, the very idea conveyed by the word 
organism or organ so evidently implies that of an organizer, 
that the most pronounced skeptic cannot get along without it. 
Thus, Kerner tried to explain the living organism in terms 
of what he called vital force; Thomas Huxley, in terms of 
what he called the organizing power; and Ernst Haeckel in 
terms of unconscious cell-souls. In Haeckel and many others, 
in ascribing a sort of life, self-activity and consciousness to 
matter, we have a return to a form of ancient Greek hylozoism. 
In trying to eliminate a designing Creator, these men have thus 
inadvertently created a supposed unconscious or impersonal 
creator or cause of their own. A cause they feel compelled to 
recognize back of organisms; and, hence, their respective 
special theories. 

Those who would follow this particular line of thought on 
design in organisms further, will find in the above work by 
Wallace, and in Janet's Final Causes, as well as in some ex- 
cellent works on Theism, a fuller development of this sub- 
ject. 

As already noted, there have been men, who, on finding 
themselves unable to explain the processes of life without de- 
sign, have looked for an explanation in the life of the organism 
Itself, thus making it a self-evolved entity. The great pioneers 



Evidence from Design in Nature ^4! 

of the doctrine of evolution, especially Buff on (i 707-1 788), 
Erasmus Darwin (1732- 1802) and Lamarck (1744- 1829), in- 
clined to this view. But, this would in effect be equivalent to 
deifying the life of the organism itself. Thus, the creative and 
directive force or agency in organisms, with these men, would 
be the vital force of the organism itself. 

Nevertheless, whatever form of the theory of evolution one 
may choose to adopt, he can no more get away from a design- 
ing Creator than if he regarded all things created full-fledged 
and perfect by an immediate act of Deity. This is acknowl- 
edged even by many of the greatest authorities on the doc- 
trine of evolution. Thus Wallace expressed himself on this 
point as follows: "I argue that they [structures of organisms 
referred to] necessarily imply first, a Creative Power, which 
so constituted matter as to render these marvels possible; next, 
a directive Mind, which is demanded at every step of the proc- 
ess we term growth and often look upon as so simple and 
natural a process as to require no explanation; and, lastly, an 
ultimate Purpose, in the very existence of the whole vast life- 
world in all its long course of evolution throughout the eons 
of geological time. This Purpose, which alone throws light 
on many of the mysteries of its mode of evolution, I hold to 
be the development of Man, the one crowning product of the 
whole cosmic process of life-development ; the only being which 
can to some extent comprehend nature" (The World of Life, 
191 1, Preface, vii.). 

And, that the so-called natural selection of the doctrine of 
evolution could in no way be mere chance or accident, is 
openly acknowledged by some of the most eminent naturalists, 
among them such authorities as Mivart, Prof. Owen and John 
Fiske. The last named says on this point, "The Darwinian 
theory, properly understood, replaces as much teleology as it 
destroys. From the first dawning of life we see all things 
working together toward one mighty goal, the evolution of the 
most exalted spiritual qualities which characterize Humanity'* 
(The Destiny of Man, p. 113). This fact he further de- 
veloped in the second volume of his Cosmic Philosophy. 

We believe, therefore, that further argument on our part, 
in proof of the fact that even the theory of the so-called evolu- 
tion of species does not eliminate design from nature, and 
therefore a designing Creator, is made unnecessary by the em- 



242 Creation Ex Nihilo 

phatic testimony of even its greatest defenders. Indeed, de- 
sign in living organisms has generally been regarded as so evi- 
dent, and indeed convincing, that it has hitherto been made the 
chief argument from nature for the existence of a Supreme 
Being operating through nature. Writers on Theisnij a gen- 
eration ago, used this argument with great force to convince 
doubters and unbelievers of the various types, of the tenable- 
ness of the Christian position, as well as to strengthen believers 
in their faith. And some of the men who viewed this mani- 
fest design in organisms more especially from the scientific 
angle, went to the extreme of well-nigh declaring for a re- 
ligion of nature, almost to the ignoring of the need of a 
supplementary Revelation. It should be needless to say, how- 
ever, that such an extreme position is equally dangerous to 
truth and religion. And the reaction against the very idea of 
design, noted above, might be expected to be a natural conse- 
quence. While design in organic nature is thus so evident that 
it should require hardly any argument in proof of it, it alone 
is nevertheless altogether insufficient to form an adequate basis 
for a religion of nature. 

But, not only in organic nature, but also no less in inor- 
ganic nature, is design everywhere manifest. And, as this 
opens up even a larger field of investigation, a field hitherto 
not adequately explored for evidences of design, it deserves 
here a much fuller consideration than that of organic nature. 
To such a consideration we shall, therefore, now proceed. 



Ill DESIGN MANIFEST IN EVERY PART AND 
EVERY LAW OF INORGANIC NATURE 

Let us now contemplate inorganic nature and set forth such 
evidences of design as are there unmistakably manifest. This 
rather neglected field for the study of teleology affords us 
an additional proof for the temporal nature of the universe 
and its necessary creation out of nothing by a designing Deity. 

I THE CONSTITUTIVE PARTICLES, OF COSMIC NATURE LIKE 
MANUFACTURED ARTICLES 

About eighty so-called primary elements are known. And 
all these chemical elements are composed of atoms, not to speak 



Evidence from Design in Nature 243 

at this point of further subdivisions. These atoms are so 
small that a drop of water would contain approximately 500 
quintillion atoms of hydrogen and 250 quintillion atoms of 
oxygen. That is, it would require a sphere of many millions 
of these atoms to be seen under a powerful microscope. And 
yet, these atoms are weighed and balanced against other atoms, 
in nature's mysterious laboratory, with absolute precision. 
And though there are so many of these atoms throughout the 
vast stretches of the material universe as to be beyond all 
human comprehension, there are probably but a few more than 
fourscore different kinds. And those of the same kind, or of 
the same elementary substance, under similar conditions, are 
apparently absolutely alike in weights, etc., while those of dif- 
ferent substances are always different. The atoms are thus 
more perfect than If they had been made by the most perfect 
artificial means. 

Taking the hydrogen atom as the standard of weight and 
calling It I, the oxygen atom weighs approximately 16, that 
of silver 107, that of radium 226, etc. Nor do these relative 
weights, under similar conditions, vary the minutest fraction. 
Thus different atoms are apparently fitted to one another by 
exact weights, etc., necessary for the constitutions of the vari- 
ous different molecules and complex substances, just as the 
various prepared materials that enter Into the make-up of 
different complex buildings are unmistakably made for one 
another. 

The atoms, In their chemical unions with one another, form 
molecules. And these are of two kinds, molecules of ele- 
ments composed of atoms of the same kind or substance, and 
molecules of compounds, composed of atoms of different kinds 
or substances. So, many elementary molecules consist of two 
or more atoms of the same kind. Thus the hydrogen, oxygen 
and nitrogen molecules have been found to have two atoms 
apiece (diatomic). And, when we come to the various chemi- 
cal compounds, we find the molecules generally much more 
complex and the atoms more numerous. Thus In nitric acid 
(HNO3) there are one atom of hydrogen, one of nitrogen and 
three of oxygen. In the Caffeine (CgH^oN^Og), found in 
coffee, there are eight atoms of carbon, ten of hydrogen, four 
of nitrogen and two of oxygen. And the molecules of many 
other compounds are still more complex. What wonderful 



244 Creation Ex Nihilo 

structures! What skill or intelligence must be necessary to 
build up such complex infinitesimal structures in their count- 
less duplicates, all exactly alike for the same substance! Yet, 
so wonderful are the workings of nature's mysterious labora- 
tory that no two of the same kind among the countless number 
also of these molecules, wherever found throughout nature, 
differ in the least detail. Surely, a law here that requires 
an infinitely intelligent law-Giver! Thus Clerk-Maxwell 
declared in a lecture before the British Association at Bed- 
ford, "None of the processes of Nature since the time when 
Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the 
properties of any molecule. On the other hand, the exact 
equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives 
it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character 
of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being 
eternal and self-existent. Science is incompetent to reason 
upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have 
reached the utmost of our thinking faculties when we have ad- 
mitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self -existent, 
it must have been created" (Scientific Papers^ published by 
Cambridge University Press, 1890, Vol. II., p. 376). 

As already stated, the atom and the molecule are far below 
the reach of the most powerful microscope. Some additional 
facts as to the sizes of these minute particles will add further 
evidence that they were created, while they will also enhance 
our conception of their wonderful Creator, Whose designed 
work is thus perfect in its almost seeming artificiality, even 
to every detail of the infinitesimal. 

According to one calculation, by Perrin, the oxygen mole- 
cule measures 2.6 Xio'^ centimeter in diameter. Or it would 
take about 100,000,000 of them side by side to measure an 
inch. Or it would require about 10^*, or one septillion, of 
them for a cubic inch. Other calculations have brought 
slightly different results, but not to change the order of magni- 
tude. Thus, according to Meyer's Kinetic Theory of Gases, 
Tr. Baynes, 1899, page 331, the mean diameter of a molecule 
would be at30ut 2X10'^ cm., or it should require 125,000,000 
molecules to measure a linear inch. That is, one molecule 
would measure 0.2 micro-micron. 

It might be said that, with the best modern microscope, it 



Evidence from Design in Nature 245 

is possible to distinguish a particle only \^^ of an inch 
in diameter. And yet it would require about 600 oxygen 
molecules side by side to measure as much as the diameter of 
this smallest visible microscopic particle. Thus it would take 
nearly 300,000 oxygen molecules arranged within a circle, or 
about 100,000,000 in spherical mass, to become barely visible 
under the most powerful microscope. 

Indeed, the individual molecule is far below the reach even 
of w^hat is known as the ultramicroscope, devised by Zsig- 
mondy. With this instrument, a particle in a colloidal so- 
lution of gold, with a diameter of only about 7- — 

=> ' -^ 100,000,000 

of an inch, it is claimed by some authorities, can be distin- 
guished. Or, with this arrangement, a particle only about 
IV of the diameter of the smallest ordinary microscopic 
particle can be distinguished. That is, it would require 
about 80 ultramicroscopic particles side by side, or over 
260,000 in spherical mass, to be distinguished in the most 
powerful ordinary microscope. But, as it would require ap- 
proximately 600 oxygen molecules side by side, or 100,000,000 
in spherical mass, to be seen with the ordinary microscope, it 
would require about 7 or 8 molecules side by side, or ap- 
proximately 300 to 400 in spherical mass, to be discerned 
even with the ultramicroscope. This would also follow di- 
rectly from the fact that a particle of of an inch 

•' ^ 100,000,000 

can be distinguished with the ultramicroscope. 

Thus the atom becomes all the more wonderful by its in- 
conceivable littleness. And its perfection and marvelous 
adaptation for union with other atoms thus stand forth all 
the more strikingly as evidences of design in their origina- 
tion. 

And, wonder of wonders! by spectrum analysis it has defin- 
itely been determined that the same atom-composed elements 
that constitute the substances of the earth, are also the con- 
stituent elements of the sun and stars. And what is true of 
the unity of the universe with reference to its separate chemi- 
cal elements, is more and more found also to be true even 
with reference to the constitutive parts of it as a cosmic whole. 
Surely, design in all this, and a designing Creator must be 
back of it! Thus, not only in ultimate minuteness, but also 



246 Creation Ex Nihilo 

in cosmic unity, design becomes an unanswerable evidence that 
all things are from the same intelligent creative Will. 

We have thus, in the constitution of the very elements as 
building materials, a remarkable provision for the combina- 
tions of these elements in the structures of all substances in 
the earth and in the sun and stars. This adaptation is so per- 
fect and so marvelous in its every detail as to leave no pos- 
sible room for doubt that it is an intentional arrangement for 
the very purposes w^hich it subserves. Surely, blind must he 
be who sees not the finger of God in this thing. And all 
really thoughtful men, whether they have any religious con- 
victions or not, if they lay all preconceptions based upon pet 
theories aside, are compelled to acknowledge the presence of 
some wonderful guiding hand in these marvelous adaptations. 
Thus, even John Stuart Mill, in spite of his pronounced nega- 
tive attitude toward all arguments from the doctrine of cause, 
from consciousness, and from nature in general, for the exist- 
ence of a creative Deity, was nevertheless compelled to make 
the following confession: *'I think it must be allowed that, 
in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in 
Nature afford a large balance of probability in favour of 
creation by intelligence" (Three Essays on Religion: Theism^ 
p. 174). 



2 evidence of design in chemical union and the 
"periodic law" 

The union of atoms of one kind with atoms of other kinds 
is in a wonderful way according to definite laws, in definite 
multiple proportions. It is always as i to i, i to 2, 2 to 3, 
etc., as for example in hydrochloric acid (HCl), carbon 
dioxide (COg), and arsenious oxide (AS2O3). Moreover, 
every kind of atom has what are called different affinities for 
different other kinds of atoms, but in different proportions. 
One atom of oxygen may be said to unite with itself two of 
hydrogen to form water (HgO), one of carbon to form car- 
bon monoxide ( CO ) , while it may be said to require two atoms 
of oxygen to unite with themselves one of carbon in forming 
carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus an absolute law governs all the 



Evidence from Design in Nature 247 

multiform combinations in the complex compositions of mat- 
ter. This is another wonderful arrangement, resulting in the 
many different kinds of compound substances for use and 
beauty, of almost infinite variety. 

Moreover, atoms of different elements unite v^ith each other 
so closely or intimately in forming molecules that in their union 
they lose every trace of their individualities or characteristic 
properties, thus forming really w^hat is known as an entirely 
different material substance. And even the very attractions 
that hold these atoms together are just what they should be 
for the variety of combinations of various different atoms. 
Much more might be said upon these and other unmistakable 
evidences of design in the laws of chemical union, so-called 
valency, etc., but these facts are sufficient for our purpose. 

Another remarkable evidence of design, closely related to 
that of chemical union, is found in the fact that the eighty or 
more primary elements are divided into groups or families 
according to what is known as the 'Teriodic Law," or the 
law of octaves in atomic weights. This law was in substance 
discovered by several investigators. It was first suggested by 
John Newlands in a letter to Chemical News in 1863, that, 
in an arrangement of the elements from hydrogen to uranium, 
the various elements, like octaves in music, would be similar 
to the eighth above or below them in the series. In a series 
of papers in 1864 and 1865, containing tables of atomic 
weights in illustration, he gave more definite form to the 
principle suggested, in the latter year naming this law the 
"law of octaves." It might, however, be said that this law 
had already been foreshadowed by Prout (1815) in his in- 
vestigations as to atomic weights, in which he was led to be- 
lieve all elements, as apparently whole numbers with hydrogen 
as I, to be only condensations of hydrogen. In Dobereiner's 
"triads," suggested several years later, some of the elements 
of this law were also suggested. 

Other men soon applied themselves to further investigations, 
among them Lothar Meyer, who as early as 1864 gave a 
very suggestive table, which he very much improved in 1868. 
He more definitely pointed out that the properties of ele- 
ments are periodic functions of their atomic weights. But it 
was the Russian chemist Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleeff who 



248 Creation Ex Nihilo 

most fully developed this law, in its various applications, al- 
ready in connection with his first published table calling it the 
"Periodic Law," the name by which it is now generally 
known. 

According to this wonderful law, the eighth element from 
any other is found to repeat properties of the first. And 
it is readily seen that, if the weight of an element is known, 
its properties can largely be determined, as the weight is found 
to fix its properties. Hence, where there occurs a gap in the 
elements, it suggests a still undiscovered element. Thus, as 
the planets are separated from one another and from the sun 
according to Bode's law of proportionate distances, so the 
members of a group of chemical elements may be regarded as 
separated from one another and from corresponding members 
in other groups in accordance with this atomic law of octaves. 
And so, as the asteroids between Mars and Jupiter were dis- 
covered from Bode's law, new chemical elements have been 
discovered by this periodic law of chemistry, as they were 
previously predicted to exist with almost definite properties. 
Thus, in 1 87 1, Mendeleeff forecast the existence of three new 
elements, which were later actually found, with properties very 
closely corresponding to the prediction; namely, Gdliumj 
Scandium and Germanium. And as yet undiscovered ele- 
ments have also been predicted and theoretically described ac- 
cording to this law; and these may in time also be discovered. 
Thus, in Mendeleelf's table of chemical elements according to 
the "Periodic Law," 1903, he placed two as yet undiscovered 
elements which he called x and y. The element y is now be- 
lieved to be an element found in the envelope of the sun, with 
an atomic weight of .4, and called coronium. And for the 
supposed element x the name Newtonium has been suggested. 
To this element Mendeleeff gave the atomic weight of .ooocx)i, 
or about 600 times lighter even than the electron, the sub- 
atomic corpuscle, spoken of in the preceding chapter. It is 
needless to say that the natural inference would be that this 
element might be the subtle ether, as the ultimate basis of all 
matter. If this element were discovered and could be 
proved to be identical with the ether, it would be the key 
to the solution of one of the hitherto greatest mysteries of na- 
ture. So, likewise, Johnstone Stoney also came to the con- 
clusion that there are three elements lighter than hydrogen. 



Evidence from Design in Nature 249 

It might also be said that with this law of chemical ele- 
ments correspond the numbers and arrangements of electrons 
in the atoms of the various kinds. Or, in other words, if we 
may anticipate, the numbers and arrangements of these sub- 
atomic electrons, in conjunction with their positive nuclei, 
cause or determine what is known as the "Periodic Law." It 
is also to these ultimate particles and their arrangements that 
chemical valency is due. Thus, in the discovery of this great 
law of chemical elements we are tracing another foot-print 
of the Creator after Him in His creation. Indeed, in the 
"Periodic Law" chemistry has found the key to the solution of 
many mysteries of nature, such as the possible further sub- 
divisions of matter, and perhaps some of the methods and pur- 
poses of the Creator. 

As above noted, according to the "Periodic Law" there are 
recurring points marking certain properties for every eighth 
element in the ascending series. And in every octave the 
stability of the atoms apparently decreases with the relative 
increase in atomic weights. Moreover, the atomic groups 
themselves, considered as units, appear to be more and more 
unstable as to their forms, as we ascend the scale of atomic 
weights. The highest and most unstable in the scale of a 
chemical family, is followed by the lowest and most stable of 
the family above it. And thus, as the scale is ascended, we 
reach the last chemical family, beyond which there is no 
other known family. The highest atomic instability is here 
reached, beyond which instability would apparently have to 
be so great that no other higher kind of atom could exist 
separately. This has led some men to conclude that the order 
of creation, or of supposed evolution, of the material elements 
from some original "protyle," or cosmic ether, began with the 
elements of lowest atomic weight and proceeded up the atomic 
scale. The disintegration, as indeed radioactivity evidently 
suggests, would then normally proceed from those of highest 
to those of lowest atomic weights. 

All these facts, instead of making against design, leave no 
room for any other explanation than that they are the un- 
mistakable work of an intelligent designing Personality. Blind 
must be he who does not see design and purpose in such 
marvelous arrangements for order in nature! 



250 Creation Ex Nihilo 



3 EVERYTHING APPARENTLY IN CEASELESS MOTION ACCORD- 
ING TO FIXED LAWS. 

Let us now consider another wonderful arrangement of 
these molecules and atoms. All are in ceaseless motions. In- 
deed, not only atoms and molecules, but everything above, as 
well as everything below them, is in motion. And cessation of 
motion would mean stagnation and death, and, as we have 
seen, in all probability, utter annihilation. 

That everything is in motion is the general verdict of science, 
and was well expressed in the following words by W. R. 
Grove: "Of absolute rest nature gives us no evidence; all 
matter, as far as we can ascertain, is ever in movement, not 
merely in masses as with the planetary spheres, but also molec- 
ularly, or throughout its most intimate structure; thus every 
alternation of temperature produces a molecular change 
throughout the whole substance heated or cooled; slow chemi- 
cal or electrical actions, actions of light or invisible radiant 
forces are always at play, so that as a fact we cannot predi- 
cate of any portion of matter it is absolutely at rest" {The 
Correlation and Conservation of Forces, 1868, pp. 26-27). 
Thus, "with larger, other eyes than ours," we could see all 
things in ceaseless motion or vibration. 

All atoms are thus apparently in ceaseless motions or revolu- 
tions, one around the other. The elementary hydrogen mole- 
cule with its two atoms is like a double star of the infinitesi- 
mal world, one revolving around the other. And what won- 
derful systems of revolving atoms are the more complex 
molecules of chemical compounds, all probably revolving around 
their common centre of gravity! Try to conceive of the won- 
derfully intricate and complex atomic rotations and revolu- 
tions within a molecule of the compound quinine with its 20 
atoms of carbon, 24 of hydrogen, 2 of nitrogen, 2 of oxygen! 
And these molecules, composed of rotating and revolving atoms, 
are themselves likewise in ceaseless motions, at enormous veloci- 
ties and developing great quantities of energy. 

It should be almost needless to say that in these marvelous 
provisions for the orderly operations of nature, not chance, 
but purpose is everywhere manifest. The hand of the infinite 
Operator is so clearly in all these details that we can almost 
3ee Him at His mysteriously wonderful work. 



Evidence from Design in Nature 251 

Another remarkable thing about the molecules is that though 
molecules of different elements are very different in size and 
weight, yet equal volumes or quantities of all gases, at the same 
temperature and pressure, have equal numbers of them. This 
law, first enunciated by Avogadro (1776-1856), has been 
demonstrated by mathematico-scientific methods and is no 
longer theory. Moreover, since the pressure in such equal 
volumes of gases is the same, and as the numbers of molecules 
are equal, it must follow that the average kinetic energy of 
the molecules in the different gases must also be equal. And, 
as the kinetic energy of any moving body is equal to -Jmv^, 
we can readily determine the relative velocities of moving 
molecules of different gases. Thus, for the moving molecules 
(or atoms) of oxygen and hydrogen, the formula would be as 
follows: 4MV2(0)=4mv2(i/). But M=i6m. There- 
fore, substituting i6m for M and dividing by Jm, i6V^=v^; 
or, v=4V. That is, the velocity of the hydrogen molecule 
would be four times that of the oxygen molecule. It has been 
determined that the average velocity of the molecule of oxy- 
gen, under standard conditions, is about 1500 feet per second, 
and that of the molecule of hydrogen is therefore about 6000 
feet a second. What energy is thus locked up in even a cubic 
inch of oxygen gas, with its inconceivable number of mole- 
cules, averaging over a mile a second! But we must not 
anticipate. 

This law furnished the basis for the determination of the 
atomic weights of different elements, and thus led to the dis- 
covery of the "Periodic Law," spoken of above. 

It has thus been found that a cubic inch of any gas, at 
760 mm. barometric pressure and 0° C, would contain approxi- 
mately 10^^ molecules. Some, however, by slightly different 
methods, make this somewhat less. It has also been demon- 
strated that the velocity, and therefore the kinetic energy, 
and for the same volume the pressure, or for the same 
pressure the volume, increases with the rise in tempera- 
ture, as also that they decrease with the lowering of 
temperature. Thus, at approximately 273° C, the molecu- 
lar velocity, kinetic energy and pressure of the gas (for 
same volume as at 0° C.) would be doubled; at 546° C. 
they would be trebled, etc. And, at — 273° C. there would be 
no pressure. And the molecules of the gas would therefore 



252 Creation Ex Nihilo 

be motionless and have no kinetic energy. And, as heat is 
due to the motions or vibrations of the molecules, or, as some 
hold, to their arrested motions, this state of — 273° C. must be 
regarded as that of absolute stagnation and cold, or of absolute 
zero of temperature. Indeed, theoretically at least, at — 273° C. 
the very volume of the gas would entirely disappear. This is 
also in line with our contention, elsewhere stated, especially 
in the preceding chapter, that cessation of motion would un- 
doubtedly mean annihilation. And this would necessarily have 
to be the case if the ultimate so-called particles of matter were 
nothing but energy. And, conversely, toward the ultimate 
identity of matter and energy this theory of the absolute zero 
of temperature, with no vibration and no volume, singularly 
points. 

Surely, design in these and many other similar laws of 
inorganic nature! 

4 ATOMS THEMSELVES LIKE PURPOSEFUL MINIATURE 
STELLAR SYSTEMS OF THE INFINITESIMAL UNIVERSE 

Let us now consider further the wonderful constitution of 
the atom itself. It is not, as until within recent years be- 
lieved, the ultimate particle that cannot be cut, as the word 
means. But it is really a miniature universe in itself. The 
atom contains thousands of electrons or negative particles in 
ceaseless revolutions within a positive field of electrification, 
which is also believed to be made up of granular particles 
like the electrons, or to consist of one larger particle. Ac- 
cording to Rutherford's latest views, the positive nucleus sur- 
rounded by negative electrons is probably very small as com- 
pared with the atom itself. This would seem to point to a 
single nucleus, or to a small number close together. Ac- 
cordingly to a theory of G. N. Wilson {Philosophic Maga- 
zine, Feb., 1916), the atom "consists of a ring of electrons 
(repelling one another according to the ordinary inverse 
square law) rotating, in the normal configuration of the atom, 
in a symmetrical manner round a small positive charge." 

A curious modification of the theory of the electronic struc- 
ture of the atom is given by A. L. Parson, in Smithsonian 
Miscellaneous Collections, Nov. 29, 1915. According to this 
view, the atom consists of a positive part and ring-shaped 



Evidence from Design in Nature 253 

negative charges called magnetons, revolving around the nu- 
cleus vi^ith peripheral velocity of the order of light at radii 
less than that of the atom. According to this view^ these 
magnetons are supposed to be ring-shaped instead of spherical 
or concentrated at a point, as they are generally regarded 
under the name electrons. 

The electron is thus generally regarded as one of the cease- 
lessly revolving particles which in or around, and together 
with, a field of uniform positive electrification, or a positive 
nucleus, or nuclei, constitute an atom. It has, therefore, by 
some been regarded as the definitely determined basic element 
of all matter, exclusive of the ether. It would appear, how- 
ever, that, as we generally use the term matter, the so-called 
uniform field of positive electrification has materiality no 
less than the negative particle or electron which apparently 
revolves around it, if this be considered to be material — a 
fact by many, however, denied. The weight of all the electrons 
of the atom is apparently, according to some investigations, not 
the same as, and indeed less than that of, the atom itself. 
Therefore, this so-called field of positive electrification must 
cause this difference of weight. And, though this positive 
particle has not yet been determined to be granular in its 
nature, it is undoubtedly so, the two sets of particles thus con- 
stituting the intrinsic atomic energy by their contrasted or 
opposing revolutions. 

There is some difference of opinion as to the size and num- 
ber of the electrons. According to Sir Oliver Lodge's calcu- 
lations, there are about 30,000 of them in an atom of oxygen 
(about 1875 in an atom of hydrogen) ; and these are of course 
widely separated. According to Arrhenius ( Theories of Chem- 
istry, p. 92), an electron has a diameter of 0.961X10'^^ cm. 
Or, it would take over 10 trillion of them side by side to 
measure a cm., and over 25 trillion to measure an inch. It 
would, according to this calculation, require about 200,000 
electrons side by side for the diameter of an ordinary oxygen 
atom (taking atom to be ^ inch), or over 4,000,- 

^ = 125,000,000 ^ ^ -T7 J 

000,000,000,000 to fill up an atom, showing that the 27,000 
or 30,000 electrons in the oxygen atom, or the 1,700 or more 
in the hydrogen atom, are indeed relatively widely separated. 



254 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Now, try to conceive of the number of electrons necessary 
to become visible under the most powerful microscope. It 
would approximately require 120,000,000 side by side, or 900 
sextillion of them in spherical mass. And it would require 
even about 1,500,000 side by side, or approximately 2X10^^ in 
spherical mass, to become visible under the ultramicroscope. 
What inconceivable numbers of these electrons, not to speak of 
even possibly smaller ether particles already referred to, would 
be in a drop of water or a grain of sand! What vastly 
greater number in this little earth, the sun, and lastly the ag- 
gregate universe! And yet, every one of them is apparently 
as perfect as if it were the only one in existence. Surely every 
ultimate particle, no less than the aggregate whole, must have 
had an omnipotent Creator! And every particle must have 
received the same attention, if we might so speak, as the cosmic 
whole, or as if it were the only creature. And just so surely 
must that omniscient Creator know and sustain and guide the 
motions of every last one of them. As no hair can fall from 
man's head without His knowledge, so no electron exists and 
moves without His power and knowledge. 

Thus, according to the slightly different views, the atom 
consists of many hundreds of electrons or negative particles, 
together with the still undiscovered particles of the positive 
nucleus. The atom of hydrogen has about 1800 or less com- 
paratively widely separated electrons, themselves in ceaseless 
revolutions with a normal velocity of about 18,000 miles a 
second. And it is calculated that even the very mass or size 
of the atom itself depends upon these internal electronic veloci- 
ties, and that for even the same atom it varies with these 
velocities and with temperatures, etc. What wonderful pro- 
vision for the constitution of matter in this arrangement of 
even its ultimate elements! Surely, wonder is added to won- 
der! The design for the very purposes thus subserved is so 
manifest that no one should have the slightest doubts that an 
almighty hand produced every ultimate particle and gave it its 
properties and revolutions, for the wonderful complexities of 
the unspeakably marvelous universe. To deny this is madness. 

Moreover, these electrons or negative particles in motion, 
handing on energy in a wire, etc., from one atom to another, 
constitute what we call electricity. This has given rise to what 



Evidence from Design in Mature 255 

is called the electrical theory of matter, discussed in our last 
chapter; namely, that what is called matter is in its last 
analysis nothing but energy, whose accumulated manifestations, 
or resisting properties, we call matter. And, of course, sup- 
posing the electron to be the ultimate unit, then one of two 
things is apparently certain: either that electricity is in reality 
only material electrons in motion and is therefore a manifesta- 
tion of matter, or that matter is ultimately composed of elec- 
tricity, made up of electrical charges, electrons or energy, within 
a possible field of positive electrification, or revolving around 
a positive integral or granular nucleus. But, because of resist- 
ance, reflection and polarization of these electrons, as also be- 
cause of weight, some still prefer to regard them as probably 
material in nature. Indeed, their energy, known as the in- 
trinsic energy of the atom, can even be calculated, according to 
the ordinary formula, ^mv^. But, then, even their mass has 
been calculated to vary with velocity. 

Another remarkable thing about the electrons is the fact 
that, while atoms of the same element are alike in size, shape, 
weight and other properties, but different for different ele- 
ments, the electrons, at least under similar circumstances, are 
apparently the same as to their properties, or identical for all 
the elements. This, surely, should suggest the ultimate identity 
of all the elements in the constitution of all matter, whether 
the electron be regarded as material or purely electrical. Dif- 
ferent elements of matter would, therefore, differ only in hav- 
ing different numbers of electrons with different velocities 
around or within their fields of positive electrification, or 
around their positive nuclei. And if the positive field of 
electrification consists of granular particles, as seems necessary 
for the integrity and stability of the atom, then these particles, 
like the electrons, must also no doubt be the same for all the 
so-called chemical elements. Therefore, all matter, in its 
ultimate analysis, would be composed of the same electrons and 
positive particles, differing only in their numbers, arrange- 
ments and revolutions. And it is not at all improbable that 
these negative and positive particles might then be composed of 
only different numbers and arrangements or revolutions of 
still smaller constitutents (etherons?), whose very difference 
in arrangements or revolutions, in a way not known to us, may 
cause their so-called respective positive and negative electri- 



256 Creation Ex Nihilo 

fication. 

If men have dreamed philosophic dreams about a possible 
monatomic nature of matter, their dreams are now probably 
matched by facts in what might be called the monelectronic or 
even perhaps monetheronic constitution of matter. And if it 
were possible artificially to break up substances into their elec- 
trons and positive particles, and to unite these again at will, 
according to their laws of composition for any other substance, 
then the long dreamed of transmutation of metals or other 
elements would become possible. Surely, the solution of the 
problem of such dissolution and reunion of electrons and posi- 
tive particles would constitute the real philosopher's stone. 
But this problem is probably beyond solution, from the very 
nature of the law of atomic structure and atomic combinations. 
As the so-called transmutation of elements in the natural pro- 
cess of radioactivity is apparently from heavier to lighter ele- 
ments, this would indicate the probable impossibility of trans- 
mutation of silver into gold, etc., or of a lighter into a heavier, 
even though the apparently impossible process of some artifi- 
cial transmutation should at some time be discovered. 

As already noted, the electrons are in ceaseless motions. 
Nor are these motions simply at random vibrations. On the 
contrary, they are held to be of the nature of planetary revo- 
lutions, according to certain fixed laws. Thus, every atom 
is really a miniature universe of ceaselessly revolving electrons 
at relatively great distances apart. If it were magnified so 
that the atom's size would expand to the size of a vast star- 
cluster, it would present a truly wonderful sight. 

Let us now imagine an atom of oxygen to be magnified 
4x10^^ times its actual size in diameter. This atom would 
then be over 6,000,000,000 miles in diameter. And its con- 
stituent electrons would be over 30,000 miles in diameter, or 
about four times that of our earth. And within this magni- 
fied atomic sphere there would be approximately 27,000 of 
these electronic stars (or planets) of over 30,000 miles each 
in diameter, all revolving in mighty revolutions within vast 
orbits, and probably around their common centre of gravity. 
Moreover, if these electronic bodies were uniformly distrib- 
uted, they would be approximately 150,000,000 miles apart, 
or about one and two-thirds our distance from the sun. This 



Evidence from Design in Nature 257 

enables us to get some idea of the truly wonderful structure 
of even an infinitesimal atom, according to latest science. 

The above would, however, be only one oxygen molecule. 
If now we should conceive of a spherical volume of oxygen 
gas an inch in diameter to be equally m.agnified, it would as- 
sume a size in diameter of approximately ten times that of 
the known universe, or somewhat over 50,000 light years in 
radius. Its atoms would constitute an inconceivable number 
of widely separated electronic star- or planet-systems, all in 
wondrous rotations, as well as revolutions around one an- 
other. And each of these atomic systems would be made up 
of 27,000 individually revolving and rotating electronic stars 
or planets. Thus a bit of simple oxygen gas only a tenth 
of an inch in diameter might be called a whole universe in 
miniature ! 

Or, if the known universe were reduced in its diameter 
(approximately 10,000 light years) so as to be only .^jqA 
of its actual size, it would be only one tenth of an inch 
in diameter. Upon this basis our sun would be so small that 
its diameter would be only about 25 to 30 times that of an 
electron. Or it would take nearly 10,000 such suns side by 
side to measure as much as the diameter of an oxygen atom. 
That is, it would require 1,000,000,000,000 such reduced suns 
to measure a linear inch, or approximately 5,000,000 side 
by side to be seen with the largest compound microscope, if it 
were possible to see such a line. 



The above had reference only, however, to a simple atom 
or to oxygen gas. But the molecule would be still more com- 
plex and wonderful. The little electronic system of each 
atom would revolve around a similar system or systems. And, 
complex as even an elementary molecule would be, how vastly 
more complex and w^onderful would be a molecule of the more 
complex compounds, such as, for example, that of strichnia 
(C21H22N2O2), with its union of 47 atoms! Under suffi- 
cient magnification, it would appear like a complex universe 
composed of many electronic stellar systems. If every carbon 
atom (atomic weight approximately 12) consists of about 
20,000 electrons, every hydrogen atom (atomic weight i) of 



258 Creation Ex Nihilo 

about 1700 electrons, every nitrogen atom (atomic weight 
approximately 14) of about 23,000 electrons, and every oxy- 
gen atom (atomic weight approximately 16) of about 27,000 
electrons, a single strichnia molecule would contain about 
557,400 electrons, not to speak of the positive part of the 
atoms. 

Thus in the carbon part of every molecule of strichnia there 
would be 21 lesser electronic systems of 20,000 electronic stars 
each, every one of them in wondrous revolution around some 
centre or centres, and all these 21 electronic systems in sys- 
temic revolutions around one another — a total system of 420,- 
000 electronic stars. In the hydrogen part of every molecule 
of strichnia there would be 22 such lesser electronic systems 
of 1700 revolving electronic stars each, and all of these 22 
systems in constant systemic revolutions around one another — • 
a total system of 37,400 electronic stars. In the nitrogen 
part of each molecule of strichnia there would be 2 such 
lesser electronic systems of about 23,000 revolving electronic 
stars each, both of them in constant systemic revolution around 
each other — a total of 46,000 electronic stars. And in the 
oxygen part of every molecule of strichnia there would be 2 
such lesser electronic systems of 27,000 revolving electronic 
stars each, both of them in constant systemic revolution around 
each other — a total of 54,000 electronic stars. And these 
four inconceivably complex atomic systems of systems of elec- 
tronic stars would be revolving around one another, and pre- 
sumably around a common centre, as a molecular universe 
of 557,400 electronic stars. 

But even this molecular universe of atomic systems of 
electronic stars, would be only one of the vast number of such 
in a speck so small as to be barely visible to the human eye, 
or even with the most powerful ordinary compound micro- 
scope. And yet, every one of these 557,400 electrons con- 
stituting a single strichnia molecule may itself constitute a still 
minuter system of revolving particles of ether, the elemental 
substance of the material universe, thus making the complexity 
of revolutions within revolutions, etc. — of revolving systems 
within or beyond revolving systems — still further almost in- 
finitely more complex. Moreover, it is the electronic revolu- 
tions that set the ether in motion for the production of light, 
heat, electricity, etc., of which we shall speak later. 



Evidence from Design in Nature 259 

From the above it is readily seen that the latest scientific 
theories, instead of making against the necessity of an infinite 
Intelligence and Power back of the universe as its ultimate 
Cause, w^ould rather, if that were possible, make such necessity 
all the more imperatively necessary. According to these sci- 
entific theories, nature becomes all the more indescribably 
wonderful, and a supreme creative Will in the structure and 
operation of its every ultimate detail all the more astonishingly 
manifest. The intelligence, will and power of what must be 
an infinite spiritual Personality, are too evident even to permit 
of honest argument to the contrary, in what we can not bet- 
ter describe than as design throughout the ultimate depths of 
what constitutes the infinitesimal universe. Thus, from the 
ultimately infinitesimal to the ultimate whole, design and 
purpose throughout nature, to him who would hold commu- 
nion with her, speak in silent eloquence of nature's infinite, 
eternal and almighty Creator and Sustainer, God. 



5 THE VAST ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE AN UNMISTAKABLE 
EVIDENCE OF PURPOSE 

We should hardly need to point out that the immeasurable 
energy of all the infinitesimal particles in the cosmic universe 
and of all the stars of the universal whole, is for the very pur- 
pose which it so wonderfully subserves, and that it is therefore 
an undeniable evidence of design. 

Conceive of hydrogen molecules moving upwards of a mile 
per second, and then consider the millions within a space 
barely visible in the most powerful microscope. To get the 
combined energy multiply one half the mass by the square of 
the velocity, and then multiply by the number of molecules. 
What energy is thus locked up in even a cubic inch of hydro- 
gen gas, with its inconceivable number of molecules averaging 
in velocity over a mile a second! 

Moreover, the energy in the chemical union of different ele- 
ments is almost inconceivably great. Thus, when hydrogen 
and oxygen (1800 cubic inches), in the ratio of 2 to i, are 
chemically united in the production of a pound of water, the 
energy from the clashing together, at a final velocity of about 
four niiles per second, of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms 



26o Creation Ex Nihilo 

and from the consequent revolutions around one another, 
would, ft is claimed, raise 32,462 pounds of water from 0° C. 
to 1° C. The number of revolutions of the atoms of hydro- 
gen and oxygen about one another is calculated to be about 
three trillions per second. And, as the heat required to raise 
a given quantity of v/ater 1° C. is equivalent to the raising of 
that quantity of water 1390 feet against gravity, the chemical 
production of a pound of water would develop energy equiva- 
lent, if properly harnessed, to the raising of 32,462 pounds of 
water 1390 feet, or one pound over 45,000,000 feet, against 
gravity. Or, it would raise a projectile of a ton nearly 25,000 
feet or almost five miles. Similar figures were arrived at by 
Tyndall. See also LeBon on The Problems of Heatj in his 
Evolution of Forces. 

So the quantity of electricity required to separate these two 
elements in even a very minute quantitj^ of water, is estimated 
to be equivalent to that of a flash of lightning. And this 
power is spoken of as latent or as potential energy. What 
enormous amount of energy is thus latent in even a drop of 
dew! What inconceivable energy in all the rivers and oceans 
of the earth! 

And what is true of the kinetic energy both in the produc- 
tion and decomposition of water, and of its latent energy, is 
also true, in varying proportions, of other substances. It has 
thus been well said that the explosion of a grain of gun- 
powder is the destruction of a miniature universe and the 
building of another. 



Thus far we have spoken of molecular and atomic energy. 
Think, then, of the energy of the electrons of all the atoms 
themselves, or of what is spoken of as the intra-atomic, or 
intrinsic, energy. 

The clashing together of the atoms in chemical union causes 
their revolving electrons to be accelerated in their velocities, 
adding greatly to the electronic or intrinsic energy of the 
atoms themselves. The number of electronic revolutions 
around the centre of the atom, is estimated to be upwards of a 
quadrillion per second. The electronic intrinsic energy of the 
atom is inconceivably greater than anything conceived of be- 
fore its discovery associated with the exploration of the field 



Evidence from Design in Nature 261 

of radioactivity. According to a calculation of Sir J. J. 
Thomson, this energy of the atoms of a gram of hydrogen 
would lift 10,000 tons over five miles. And, generally speak- 
ing, the tntrgy of other elements varies with the numbers of 
the electrons, or w^ith the atomic weights. Speaking of the 
enormous electrical potential, LeBon makes the following at 
least seemingly exaggerated statement: "A small part of the 
96,000 coulombs drawn from the decomposition of 9 grammes 
of water would charge with electricity to a potential of 7000 
volts a globe as large as the earth" {The Evolution of ForceSj 
p. 166). 

So, the energy of radium is enormous, about several million 
times greater than that of any known chemical reaction. Con- 
ceive of the energ}^ produced by the alpha particles (helium 
atoms), moving at a velocity of from 10,000 to 20,000 miles 
a second! Think of the beta particles moving about 90,000 
miles a second, and even approaching the velocity of light, 
not to speak of the energy of the subtle gamma rays! As 
LeBon says, the energy produced by a sphere as large as a 
pin's head revolving on its axis with the speed of the projec- 
tion of a cathode particle would be equivalent to the kinetic 
energy of 1500 steam, engines of 500 horse power each for a 
whole hour {Ibid., p. 167). What enormous unused energy 
there is ! Of what unlimited service it would be if it could be 
harnessed! According to Soddy, even a gram of negative hy- 
drogen ions, if free, could charge the world to a potential of 
a million volts. 



The wonderful provision of all these atomic and sub-atomic 
revolutions is aw^e-inspiring. It is these very revolutions that 
hold so-called ponderable matter in existence. The destroying 
of the meVe equilibrium of these complex revolving infinitesi- 
mal atomic and sub-atomic structures would cause them to dis- 
integrate, and perchance to pass into the elemental ether, or 
when their energy w^ould be spent, into non-existence. We 
are really floating through space upon a potential explosive. 
It is held from exploding only by a proper equilibrium of 
forces, or, as it might in a sense be expressed, by its very flight. 
And at any moment it will take but little to reduce it to dust 
and nothingness. 



262 Creation Ex Nihilo 

Who will put his little preconceptions against design and 
purpose in all this wonderful arrangement of energy for the 
conduct of the universe, from electron to flashing sun! What 
unenlightened human reason is sufficient to fathom the un- 
fathomable wonder of adaptation and purposeful provision of 
creation, and think its Creator out of existence! Where de- 
sign so overwhelming flashes forth in every consideration of 
revolving electron, atom, molecule, world and star, who will 
weigh his little self against an infinite designing creative 
Deity! Vain man to think thyself so great, in thy great 
littleness, before the wondrous universe and its infinitely more 
wondrous Creator, God! 

If the revolutions within the atom, spoken of, represented 
electronic years and if an electron were imagined to be in- 
habited by sentient beings, whose average lease of life were 
one hundred of these electronic years, then ten trillion genera- 
tions of these beings would succeed one another or pass away 
within a second of our time. And, to them, therefore, a sec- 
ond of our time would practically be an eternity. And so, for 
all we know, our years, or the lease of human life of three 
score years and ten, might be but like the infinitesimal frac- 
tion of a second of the possible higher universe, in which the 
earth might be but like an electron, the solar system like an 
atom, a group of mutually connected star-systems but like a 
molecule, and the whole known physical universe but like a 
speck of the dust that floats in the sunshine and helps to 
make up the merest infinitesimal fraction of a minute local 
spot upon this insignificant world within the universe we 
know. 

At any rate, who can stand in judgment and decide against 
design and a designing Creator, in the light of the combined 
evidence of the greater whole! It amounts to a presumption 
for which language affords no expression, for human intellect 
proudly to stand before all these evidences of design in the 
inconceivable energy of all infinitesimal particles and all 
worlds and stars, etc., in motion according to wonderful laws, 
and say, "There is no designing Creator; there is no God!" 
The evidence for a designing Creator with this additional evi- 
dence thus becomes more and more cumulative,, and; indeed 
altogethei: iAnanswe.rable. 



Evidence from Design in Nature 263 

6 DESIGN IN EVERY VIBRATION FROM AN OBJECT PERCEIVED 
TO THE PERCEIVING BEING 

Let us now consider the wonderful purposes of the vibra- 
tions or motions, with which the universe is seething every- 
where. All these motions, from the infinitesimal gyrations of 
an electron to the on-rushing, in probably immeasurable orbi- 
tal revolutions, of flaming stars or suns, are in accordance with 
rigid laws. These motions lie back of all physical phenomena, 
from the rainbow of promise to the eclipse of darkness, from 
the leaf that trembles in the breeze to the Stella nova of col- 
liding worlds, from pulsating blood to flaming suns. It is this 
that produces all light, heat, electricity, magnetism, color, etc., 
etc. 

Thus, the particles on the surface of the sun — undoubtedly 
the electrons — are in ceaseless motions. These set into wave- 
motion the contiguous ether, and by ether particles, striking 
forward against ether particles, this wave motion is trans- 
mitted through the ether of space until the waves are ob- 
structed or intercepted by a body like our earth. And then the 
waves, in turn, communicate their motions to the retina of the 
eye, etc.; and, through the proper nerves, the phenomena or 
sensations of light and heat are produced — or we might almost: 
say reproduced — for the perceiving being. Thus, nothing ex- 
cept transmitted motion passes from sun to earth. 

For the passing of these various waves from sun to earth, it: 
requires over eight minutes. Or, all ether waves travel 186,- 
000 miles a second. These waves are of different lengths,, 
ranging from long waves of several miles, harnessed in wire- 
less telegraphy, to the infinitesimally short ultra-violet waves. 
The range in length of waves for the light spectrum is from 
of an inch for violet light to — ^- of an inch for 



60,000 ^ 34.000 

red light. Thus, for the light spectrum there are from 34,000 
waves (for red) to 60,000 waves (for violet) per inch. 

But the light spectrum covers only a small part of the whole 
range of these ether waves. The ultra-violet waves are 
shorter than the shortest waves of the light spectrum, and the 
ultra-red, or heat rays, etc., are longer than the longest waves 
of the visible spectrum. Among the ultra-violet waves, rang- 



264 Creation Ex Nihilo 

ing from > ^ ' inch to — ^ — inch, are the rapid vibra- j 
=> 60,000 250,000 ' ^ ™ 

tions that affect the photographic plate, as also do slower 
waves immediately beyond the red end of the spectrum. 
Beyond the red are slower infra-red vibrations that mark the 
bolometer spectrum. Then comes a gap where waves have not 
yet been detected, although waves are no doubt there. And, 
lastly, after a considerable gap of undetected waves, we come 
to the Hertz waves of the electrical spectrum. And, even 
beyond both ends of the entire known spectrum there is also 
undoubtedly a considerable range of waves that have not yet 
been discovered. 

Now, as the various wave-motions are transmitted at the 
rate of 186,000 miles per second, for the violet waves to cover 
that distance in a second, it requires about 700 trillions of 
them. Therefore, there are about 700 trillions of violet waves 
per second, the number of the other waves being more or less 
as we descend or ascend along what might be called the many- 
octaved key-board of the whole range of waves. 

And, of course, all these ether waves are set into motion by 
rapidly moving particles — undoubtedly the revolving electrons 
— in the surface of the sun. Moreover, for a perfect corre- 
spondence between the wave-motion of the ether and the mov- 
ing electrons that cause them, the velocity of the latter should 
apparently be the same as that of the former. Or, the num- 
bers of the vibrations or waves of the ether as effects would 
apparently have to be matched by the numbers of the vibra- 
tions of the electrons as their causes. Thus, the numbers of 
the vibrations of these electrons must apparently range to cor- 
respond with the numbers of the vibrations or waves along 
the whole key-board of ether vibrations given above. 

We are here in the presence of a wonder of nature, and of 
a wonderful provision of contacts between the moving elec- 
trons and the perceiving eye, or of transmissions from the sun 
until they become sensations of light and heat, etc., in the 
mind of man, that no anti-theistic bias could even honestly 
dream of attributing to anything else than matchless intelli- 
gence on the part of an unmistakable Designer or Creator. 

' Moreover, upon these same revolving electrons depend all 
the colors that make objects visible and beautify the world. 



Evidence from Design in Nature 265 

What wonderful arrangement for the beautifying of nature! 
What marvelous contrivance for bringing external nature 
to the apprehension or perception of intelligent beings v^^ithin 
it! 

Who can think of light and heat as coming to us by incon- 
ceivably small v^aves of the ether at almost inconceivable ve- 
locities from distant sun or star, w^ithout being overwhelmed 
with awe and thrilled with rapture over this wonderful pro- 
vision of what must be an all-wise and all-powerful Provider! 
Who can think of the sunbeam as it comes dancing down to 
us over waves of the ether, without almost falling down in 
devout and grateful adoration before their wonderful Author! 

Every wave is, moreover, apparently perfect, as if it were 
the only wave transmitted; and yet, there is a complexity of 
waves of various lengths and numbers causing the phenomena 
of various colors, heat, and chemical action, moving simul- 
taneously in the same wave-shaft of the same ether medium, 
from sun to earth, without interference. This certainly is in- 
describably wonderful. What wonderful provision in the 
laws of refraction, reflection and absorption of light according 
to various electronic vibrations, for the wonderful uses of light, 
etc., and for the exquisite variety and beauty of color! All 
color is thus due to what we call the power of objects to 
absorb some waves and to reflect others. 

Indeed, if the vibrations of the ether and of the electrons 
of objects did not match exactly as they do, all the world 
would look different. And if the electrons of the sun and the 
particles of the contiguous ether, in their respective motions, 
did not match exactly as they do, all would be different, leav- 
ing perchance total darkness amid chemical action, heat, or 
what not. The matching of the imponderable ether and pon- 
derable matter is such as to leave absolutely no room for 
doubt that they were matched or arranged together exactly for 
the purpose which they so wonderfully subserve, by an intelli- 
gent creative Will, and that therefore they were created. 

Who can see colors beautiful and indefinitely varied, 
blended and matched together, either in the rainbow of the sky 
or in the blossoms at his feet, without thinking of their Creator 
in the beauty of holiness! Who can think of these things as 
the results of infinitesimal vibrations of one kind or another, 
and therefore as, in a sense, various manifestations of energy, 



266 Creation Ex Nihilo 

without thinking of the unspeakably wonderful Being Who 
made all these things and arranged their operations so 
marvelously ! 

IV GENERAL ADAPTATIONS AND PROVISIONS 
IN NATURE AS EVIDENCES OF DESIGN 

Throughout the whole realm of nature we are in the pres- 
ence of most wonderful provisions and arrangements for use 
and beauty. Surely, in a sense, everything is made for every- 
thing else. The atoms are clearly made for one another. 
Their weights, etc., are exactly adjusted for certain definite 
combinations with other atoms for the building up of the 
various substances. The laws of molecular, atomic and elec- 
tronic combinations are exactly what they have to be to make 
those combinations possible. The electrons of which the atoms 
on the surface of the sun are composed, revolve with exactly 
the velocities necessary for producing ether waves in just such 
a way as to transmit light, heat, etc., for observing beings. 
The ether is exactly constituted to be a medium for these phe- 
nomena. Ponderable matter and ether are so related that they 
fit each other exactly for definite reciprocal action. Motions 
of ponderable matter are communicated to the contiguous 
ether and through it to distant matter for reproduction there, 
or for the setting up of vibrations of other kinds or orders for 
definite results. Thus, matter affects the ether and the ether 
in turn affects matter. And so intimate is their bond of union 
and cooperation that they could apparently not exist apart or 
alone. They must have been made for each other, for the 
production of the wonderful physical operations that we are 
first beginning partially to understand. Matter and ether are 
in purpose and unifying design one, as in substance they are by 
many believed to be ultimately one, the ether the foundation 
of matter and matter the product of the ether. And the scien- 
tific world-process is more and more believed by philosophic 
scientists to be from the ether to matter and back again to 
the ether. And ultimately it must be from nothingness to 
nothingness. 

The eye with its wonderful mechanism is likewise exactly 
fitted to receive its proper impression from the ether waves. 
To it is adapted the exact nerve system to communicate its 



Evidence from Design in Nature 267 

impressions to the brain. And the brain is just the organ nec- 
essary as an instrument for the invisible mind or personality 
within, to receive revelations, or to understand. And, through- 
out the whole chain of sequences, all are different from one 
another in the succession, and yet all are in perfect adjustment 
for exactly that work for which they were unmistakably de- 
signed and created. 

And, to this would have to be added the still more wonder- 
ful provision or design seen in organic nature, from the small- 
est unicellular being to the most complex animal. For each 
class or species its own kind of cells; for even each organ of 
an individual its differently designed cells! For each class its 
own nutrition-selection and provision for the proper colloca- 
tion of nutrition! And for each its own characteristic kind of 
blood corpuscles, etc! And who can contemplate the marvel- 
ous provision in sex, for the reproduction of species, by which 
they are endowed with the power of procreation, or we might 
almost say creation, without recognizing the unmistakable de- 
sign and work of a designing Creator! 

Some men speak of protoplasm as the basis of organic life, 
as if its chief element, carbon, w^re a creator. But, carbon 
cannot produce life. And, although protoplasm's principal 
elements, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, were united 
in the laboratory with ever so great exactness, the chemist 
could not discover nature's secret of producing protoplasm. 
And yet, even the very perfect proportions unmistakably indi- 
cate a proportioning, designing Creator. Surely, design every- 
where! a different design for every different species of both 
plants and animals! Design on every individual of every kind! 
Design in every organ of the individual, in every blood cor- 
puscle, cell, molecule, atom and electron! 

Thus, in the universe of stars, in the universe of the infini- 
tesimal, and in the realm that may be said to lie between, there 
is design and creative intelligence everywhere. But, if the de- 
sign and arrangement of material substance in nature are so 
wonderful, how much more so should be the existence of the 
substances themselves! If the arrangement requires intelli- 
gence and power, much more so does the absolute creation of 
the material, with which that arrangement was made possible! 
Surely, a creative Divinity back of each and all upo*n which 
His impress is so gloriously manifest! Nor is there anything 



268 Creation Ex Nihilo 

in all worlds that would not have occasion to raise heavenward 

its grateful Pater Noster. 

The beauties of nature are such as unspeakably to delight 
the eye; the harmonies of nature are such as inexpressibly to 
delight the understanding. Blind indeed must be he who does 
not see nature's beauties; and deaf must be he who does not 
perceive its harmonies. But, blinder still, or more irrational, 
must be he who does not recognize back of all this beauty and 
harmony, the infinite Beautifier, Harmonizer, Originator and 
Designer — nature's omnipotent, omnific and omniscient Lord. 
The ancient sages were not so far from the truth after all 
when they spoke of a supposed music of the spheres. There 
are harmonies everywhere, from every ultimate sub-atomic 
particle to the well-nigh infinite universe. Nor is there any 
discord apparent anywhere throughout the whole, except that 
of irreverent and rebellious man. These facts of design are so 
evident that the observing student of nature, whether he has 
any religious convictions or not, should unmistakably recognize 
them. And this design in the beauties and harmonies of na- 
ture must necessarily be attributed to a higher Intelligence, 
as Benjamin Moore is moved to say, ''The ordered beauty 
of the world of Nature suggests an infinite intelligence with 
powers of action such as no man or other creature possesses" 
(The Origin and Nature of Life, 191 2, p. 23). 

Indeed, design in all things is so manifest as to need no 
further proof. Law and order are so universal as to convince 
even the casual observer that a supreme Law-Giver is some- 
where upon His imperial throne. And the fact that this earth 
would not be even a visible speck within the field of the 
mightiest telescope from even our nearest neighbor among 
those countless stars of night, makes that great and wonderful 
Beautifier, Law-Giver, Creator and Designer all the greater 
and more wonderful. This fact, too, seeing that man is the 
object of His love in the incarnation of His Son, instead of 
minimizing man, gives him the exalted place of His Fatherly 
concern and providence. And, if some men think of man, 
because of his wonderful being, as the riddle of existence, 
what should not be thought of man's, and the whole universe's, 
infinitely more wonderful creative Deity! If the wonder of 
the human intellect increases with every new discovery of the 



Evidence from Design in Nature 269 

wonders of the Creator's handiwork, how much more should 
the wonder of Him Increase Who created them! If the foot- 
prints of the Creator, as we trace them after Him in his cre- 
ation, are wonderful, how much more wonderful must He 
be Who left them there for man's contemplation and delight! 

V NOT CHANCE, BUT LAW REIGNS— THE 
MODUS OPERANDI OF AN INTELLIGENT 
PERSONALITY 

Men speak of chance as though they meant something; but, 
even with their own meaning of the term, chance could not, 
during all the aeons of time, produce a single organism, or 
even a single electron, and much less so the immeasurably com- 
plex universe. By so-called chance or accident even the ar- 
rangement of a hundred numbers or particles twice in exactly 
the same way would be practically an impossibility. What, 
then, shall we say of the impossibility of a repeating in the 
same arrangement of the indefinite number of particles in two 
of even the minutest similar microcosms? Then, how about 
the vast number of the same kind, or the countless numbers 
of kinds, of the incomprehensibly complex universe? No, 
the universe exists; and its existence could not even be con- 
ceived to be different from what it is while pervaded with 
and permeated by the present purposeful universal laws. 

Indeed, what we call chance is no less the result of a cause 
or causes operating according to definite, though by us not 
understood or unsuspected, law, than any event with whose 
cause or causes we may be familiar. And of this fact we 
should expect a denial least of all from men of science. And, 
among those most positively convinced of this fact are some of 
the greatest leaders of scientific thought. Thus, Henri Poin- 
care makes the following emphatic statement about the uni- 
versality of cause, as against supposed chance: "Every phe- 
nomenon, however minute, has a cause; and a mind infinitely 
powerful, infinitely well-informed about the laws of nature, 
could have foreseen it from the beginning of the centuries. 
If such a mind existed, we could not play with it at any 
game of chance; we should always lose. In fact for it the 
word chance would not have any meaning, or rather there 
would be no chance. It is because of our weakness and our 



270 Creation Ex Nihilo 

ignorance that the word has a meaning for us. And, even 
without going beyond our feeble humanity, what is chance for 
the ignorant is not chance for the scientist. Chance is only 
the measure of our ignorance. Fortuitous phenomena are, by 
definition, those whose laws we do not know" (The Founda- 
tions of Science^ 1913, p. 395). 

But, why turn aside even to refer to chance, to which we 
have also referred before, in deference to some speculators who 
would rid the universe of its God, if that were possible? The 
very acknowledged presence of law in nature should forever 
settle and rule out of court what these men call chance. It 
would surely be absurd to say that a giant printing press came 
to be by chance, by the fortuitous concourse of atoms or mole- 
cules, resulting in wheels, etc., and in the accidental arrange- 
ment and adjustment of these into one mighty mechanism, and 
in the spontaneous rotations of the wheels in their complex 
gearings, performing amazing operations. But it would be 
indescribably more absurd to say that even the minutest or- 
ganism thus came to be, and even yet more absurd to say that 
the higher animals with their wonderful provisions of sex — 
even in different individuals — for propagation, thus came to 
be. And, to express the degree of absurdity of saying that the 
whole unspeakably complex and wonderful universe thus came 
to be, we search in vain for a word. 

A further explanation of what we generally call law is nec- 
essary here in the interest of clearness. A proper understand- 
ing of law will take another prop away from under those who 
would bolster themselves up in their contention for the eter- 
nity and self-subsistence of the universe, and therefore against 
the existence of a supreme Will beyond and within it — the 
existence of its Creator and Sustainer, God. It will also add 
to the cumulative force of our argument in further demon- 
stration, even apart from Scripture, that it was God-created 
and continues to be God-sustained. 

What we call law is not that by which a thing exists or 
even by which it operates; but it is the expression of its meth- 
ods of existence or of its operation. Law is, therefore, not 
a cause, but a modus operandi or a condition of existence. The 
laws of nature are, therefore, conditions of its existence as to 
time and space, and its modes of operations. To say, there- 



Evidence from Design in Nature 271 

fore, that the supposed evolution in nature, or any of nature's 
isolated events, is brought about by law, is as absurd as to say 
that the arrangement of the proper wheels, etc., and their re- 
lations to one another, of a great printing press, are the cause 
of its existence and its wonderful operations. The printing 
press exists, because it was made, its wheels, etc., being so 
made and adapted or adjusted, as to make it capable of exactly 
the operations for which it was intended. Then the power or 
energy is applied or superadded from an external source, and 
its operations are exactly in accordance with the design of the 
living machinist, who designed and made it and arranged for 
the application of the necessary energy. 

Even upon the supposition that the universe was created at 
first in its elemental form and endowed with the necessary po- 
tentialities for its development to the last link in its immeas- 
urably long chain, it would be no less throughout totally a 
God-designed and God-created universe. 

Thus, the universe exists because it was created, not be- 
cause it came by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. Its parts 
are so made and adjusted and related to one another by, or 
according to, superadded laws, and the great whole is so im- 
pregnated with energy, that all events in nature are brought 
about exactly in accordance with the design of the mighty liv- 
ing Designer, Creator and Upholder of the great complex 
machinery which we call nature. And, we emphasize again, 
this is equally true whether the universe be regarded as having 
come from His creative hand at once complete and perfect, 
like Minerva full-fledged and perfect when Vulcan struck 
Jupiter on the forehead, or whether it issued forth an ap- 
parently incoherent chaos with superadded potentialities to de- 
velop it into the mighty cosmos. Wherever the Creator has 
used secondary causes, these have been only His voluntarily 
created and chosen tools. And, in their use, design is just 
as evident as in any immediate act. Nor is the record of 
Genesis against the use of such secondary agencies in the 
creation of the cosmic universe. Nay, rather, such a method 
of operation seems to be implied in such expressions as "Let 
the earth bring forth grass" (Chap, i :ii-i2) ; "Let the waters 
bring forth abundantly the moving creature" (1:20-22): 
"Let the earth bring forth the living creature" ( i :24) ; as also 



272 Creation Ex Nihilo 

In Genesis 1:28, etc. And that Immediate and mediate cre- 
ation both figured in that creative week seems to be implied 
in the expression that God rested from all His work which 
He had "created and made!* literally created — to make. And, 
taken very literally, the continued making might be considered 
as implied. 

As already said, all things are bound together and move 
together, there being no isolation of existence, no independ- 
ence of motion. The Cause of all alone must remain un- 
moved, or else there would be relativity. And, as the first 
and only true Cause, that Cause operates and is present in all 
secondary causes, as already pointed out, though He must also 
be external to all secondary causes and therefore above nature. 
That Cause that thus transcends, and is also immanent In, 
nature, is what by Revelation man has learned to adore as 
God. There Is, therefore, even a physical sense in which 
there is an all-pervading divine omnipresence. 

All the operations of nature are, therefore. In accordance 
with divinely imposed purposeful laws. And, we have seen 
that what is true of the starry universe is equally true in the 
realm of the infinitesimal. Even down to the ultimate indi- 
visible particle of matter, all combine in exact proportions by 
definite laws, in the formations of different substances. Mo- 
tions, weights, sizes, numbers, all are in perfect balance and 
adjustment. Thus, from electron or atom to a world, from 
stars to the great starry universe, everything exists upon an 
exact mathematical plan. It is one mighty building that must 
first have existed as a plan or design in the mind of its De- 
signer, God. 

Nor does the carrying out of such design through secondary 
causes in the least detract from the power and glory of the 
Designer, as such would only be the methods of His opera- 
tions. His direct and, therefore, absolute power stands back 
of the Initial creation of matter and energy, or, matter or en- 
ergy, and His operation through secondary causes is no less 
from and by His power. And the so-called laws are only 
the directed methods of His workings through these secondary 
causes. He is, therefore, not Himself bound by these laws, 
but is above them as their Author. Moreover, whenever He 
so chooses. He can set aside the operation of such laws, or 
operate by other and higher laws, or directly, If we choose so 



Evidence from Design in Nature 273 

to regard it. Even man thus acts in apparent contravention of 
the law of gravitation, when, in accordance with another law, 
by will-directed muscular energy, he lifts a stone or performs 
any other act. This conclusion is not, as some men would 
have people believe, simply the supposedly biased view of theo- 
logians and the Church. It is also the conviction of many 
of the greatest students of nature, such as Mivart, Wallace, 
Fiske, Lodge and G. Frederick Wright. 

Thus, the physical universe must not necessarily be regarded 
as rigidly a mechanism, without even an extraordinary pres- 
ence within it of its Author, although it is, ordinarily consid- 
ered, such a mechanism, mathematically and superbly consti- 
tuted. As matter cannot think, and therefore design or exe- 
cute, the inevitable logical conclusion is, that such a manifestly 
designed universe must have been designed, and that design 
in existing nature executed by Mind — which alone can be a 
designing cause. We arrive, therefore, at the same conclusion 
at which we have arrived in a previous consideration. 

Thus, the physical universe, as it exists, necessarily implies 
an architectonic Intelligence and Will as having designed it 
and called it into being and as still upholding it. And, if that 
Will were withdrawn, as already noted — and as the over- 
whelming evidence of both nature and Scripture proves it will 
be at some time — it would pass away and cease to be. And 
that Will must be free and sovereign. Moreover, the action 
of such Intelligence and Will must necessarily be in accord- 
ance with consistent reason. 

Furthermore, the very necessity of intelligence to contem- 
plate and in some slight measure comprehend nature, is itself 
an a priori evidence, an implied conclusive proof, that the na- 
ture thus contemplated must necessarily be the designed and exe- 
cuted product of Intelligence. The tracing out of law and 
order in nature implies the previous imposing upon or placing 
into nature, of that law and order. Just as the reading and 
thinking of the thoughts expressed on a printed page presup- 
pose an intelligent personality as its author, who first thought 
and expressed them, so does our reading and thinking of 
thought or law expressed or implied in universal nature pre- 
suppose an intelligent Personality as its Author. And as the 
mind or personality that contemplates nature must be an en- 



274 ~ Creation Ex Nihilo 

tity superior to the merely physical nature which it contem- 
plates, so must the Mind or Personality That has constituted 
nature, the creative Cause of both the contemplated nature and 
the contemplating mind, be infinitely superior to the merely 
contemplating mind. And that transcendent creative Per- 
sonality, Who is thus the Author of both mind and physical 
nature, or of universal nature inclusive of man, corresponds 
to, and must necessarily be identical w^ith, the Creator re- 
vealed in the Christian Scriptures, Whom the Christian wor- 
ships as Jehovah, Lord and God. 

VI THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF CREATION 

As the whole of universal nature teems with evidences that 
it is a designed creature and yet that it is not an end in itself, 
the question spontaneously arises, What was the Divine pur- 
pose in its creation? Here, if anywhere, from the view-point 
of limited human understanding, we are in the region of mys- 
tery. Surely, the reach of human vision falls far short of 
the ability to penetrate the ultimate mystery of the well-nigh 
infinite created existence. We may perhaps see but the fringe 
of the immeasurably greater whole of God's creation. Be- 
yond our vision may lie existences of which in our trammeled 
human existence here we could have no conception. Beings 
or existences beyond the range of the physical eye may lie all 
around, above and beyond our insulated existence, of which 
not even imagination could form a picture. Confined within 
our comparatively little island universe — perhaps a mere speck 
somewhere within the immeasurable all-inclusive higher uni- 
verse — unenlightened reason must needs be humble in its pre- 
tensions to assign a reason for the greater whole. 

Among those who have been compelled to acknowledge this 
limitation of the human mind was even Thomas Huxley, as 
witness the following words: "The ultimate forms of exist- 
ence which we distinguish in our little speck of the universe 
are, possibly, only two [matter and energy or mind] out of 
infinite varieties of existence, not only analogous to matter 
and analogous to mind, but of kinds which we are not compe- 
tent so much as to conceive — in the midst of which, indeed, 
we might be set down, with no more notion of what was about 
us, than the worm in a flower-pot, on a London Balcony, has 



Evidence from Design in Nature 275 

of the life of the great city" (Hume, With Helps to the Study 
of Berkeley, 1896, Appendix, Note A, p. 286). 

And yet, we are not left entirely without some evidence as 
to God's purpose in His creation. That man is himself, at 
least in part, the key to the riddle of the universe, is by no 
means an antiquated belief. This view of nature on the part 
of the Church, in her reliance upon the teachings of her time- 
honored written credentials, is accepted or shared by many 
of the greatest thinkers of our day and generation. Indeed, 
toward this view philosophic speculation, especially in the light 
of more recent researches into man's mysteriously wonderful 
psychic personality, has a tendency more and more to gravi- 
tate. And even many matter-of-fact physical scientists, from 
the writings of some of whom we have already quoted in this 
work, are beginning to react more and more against the mate- 
rialistic conception of man and nature, and to regard man as 
at least locally nature's glorious crown, and perhaps in a meas- 
ure its final cause. 

We believe, and are convinced, that the evidence from 
nature, as well as the evidence from the human heart, is 
wholly in accord with the evidence from the Christian Scrip- 
tures, that the physical universe is the colossal, yet finite and 
temporal, scaffolding spoken into being by the Almighty for 
the working out of a higher spiritual purpose. And that pur- 
pose is undoubtedly the development of the even more glorious 
spiritual kingdom, or spiritual universe, in which glorified men 
and seraphic intelligences may dwell and enjoy the revelations 
of His love and the unutterable glory of His unfathomable 
infinite Being forever. 

Man's powers are developing with almost a prophetic con- 
sciousness toward some great final goal; and we may devoutly 
believe that they are perhaps even fitting him better to under- 
stand and to appreciate the glories and complexities of the 
world beyond, where in God's higher spiritual universe they 
may continue to develop throughout eternity, yet forever in- 
commensurable with the capacities of his God. Even here, 
the more the intellect thinks the thoughts of God after Him 
in His creation, the more the heart must feel and appreciate 
the pulsations of an almighty Creator and anxious Father in 
every part thereof. 

And thus in that spiritual realm some coronation of man 



276 Creation Ex Nihilo 

seems assured, in that still higher glory which is in store for 
him — a fact also set forth in the Christian Scriptures. The 
Redeemed are said to be destined to stand "before the throne, 
and before the Lamb"; and there they will reveal unto the 
rest of created intelligences the love of their common Father 
in the sacrifice of His Son, as those "who came out of great 
tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white 
in the blood of the Lamb." In that capacity, it is written, 
they shall reign with Christ forever. And we may reverently 
believe that they may be the only competent beings to declare 
the story of eternal love in Calvary, to the sinless creatures 
which may people other realms, and perhaps countless millions 
of worlds that dot the map of God's magnificent empire. 



CHAPTER IX 

TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES AS TO CRE- 
ATION IN ACCORD WITH THE EVIDENCE 
FROM NATURE 

We have now shown at considerable length that the phys- 
ical universe everywhere, from the ultimate infinitesimal par- 
ticle to the cosmic whole, solemnly testifies that it is a temporal 
entity and that it was created out of nothing in time, or at 
time's beginning, by the omnific power of a transcendent 
Deity. We have shown, moreover, that this testimony is 
matched by the very nature of the human mind, perceived ma- 
terial nature's perceiving complement. We shall now briefly 
give attention to another, and no less, but rather more, credible 
witness as to this great subject. We say, rather more credible 
witness, because we may be pardoned for considering the testi- 
mony of the truthful doer of an act more reliable and more 
complete and intelligible than even the evidence deducible 
from the act itself. That witness is, of course, the Creator 
Himself, as He sets forth His testimony in His Word. But, 
we were almost about to forget that many either in whole 
or in part reject that Word as divinely inspired, and there- 
fore regard it, from their point of view, as not acceptable 
evidence. 

And yet, even many of those men who deny not only that 
Word but even the very existence of a personal Divinity in 
and above nature, often make remarkable concessions. They 
are compelled by the force of an inexorable logic to concede 
enough at least to make them and their honest followers open 
to conviction. They are thus forced to acknowledge a divin- 
ity of their own conception, if they have not yet come to ac- 
cept the God to Whom nature everywhere eloquently testi- 
fies and Whom the Christian Scriptures so clearly reveal. 
Thus, in a late work by Ernst Haeckel he makes the foUow- 

^77 



278 Creation Ex Nihilo 

ing striking statement: "Our Monistic god, the all-embrac- 
ing essence of the world, the Nature-god of Spinoza and 
Goethe, is identical with the eternal, all-inspiring energy, and 
is one, in eternal and infinite substance, with space-filling mat- 
ter. It 'lives and moves in all things,' as the Gospel says. 
And as we see that the law of substance is universal, that 
the conservation of matter and of energy is inseparably con- 
nected, and that the ceaseless development of this substance 
follows the same 'eternal iron laws,' we find God in natural 
law itself. The will of God is at work in every falling drop 
of rain and every growing crystal, in the scent of the rose 
and the spirit of man" (Last Words on Evolution, Tr. Mc- 
Cabe, 1906, p. 112). 

Then, why should not such a concession lead at least an 
honest searcher after truth to the true Light that alone can 
lighten the darkness — to Him Who alone is the key to the 
solution of this transcendent question? But here, too, pride of 
intellect forbids, for such belief in the God of Scripture, 
and especially as incarnated in the humble Nazarene, is ap- 
parently beneath the dignity of a philosopher, as witness the 
following words: "How could so vigorous a thinker 
[Goethe], in whose mind the evolution of organic life ran 
through millions of years, have shared the narrow belief of 
a Jewish prophet and enthusiast who sought to give up his 
life for humanity 1900 years ago?" (Ibid., p. 112). If the 
learned philosopher had learned that humility which charac- 
terized that Jewish Prophet, and learned His teaching, that it 
is the meek that are blessed, he, too, might long ago have 
bowed his head and knee before the Son of man and incarnate 
Son of God. 

Therefore, as our foregoing chapters have set forth the 
evidence which these men, even upon the basis of their own 
premises, are compelled to accept, we shall in this chapter not 
attempt directly to convince them with the testimony of the 
Scriptures. We shall rather show that what nature and the 
constitution of the human mind testify to be incontrovertibly 
true as to their origin, is positively asserted in the Scriptures. 
In other words, instead of first endeavoring to prove the cre- 
ation ex nihilo from the Scriptures and then confirming such 
proof by the evidence from nature, we have first presented 
our proof from the evidence of nature, that it is such a ere- 



Testimony of the Scriptures 279 

ation, and shall now show that this exactly corresponds with 
the testimony of the Christian Scriptures. This method should 
be the more likely one to bring conviction for a creation ex 
nihilo by a Deity to those who deny it, as also it should more 
likely convince the rejecter of the Scriptures that their cor- 
respondence with nature proves them to be of a piece with 
nature, and therefore from the same source. It should thus 
almost compel conviction also that the Scriptures are no less 
God-inspired than is the universe God-created — the two being 
related to their common Author and Creator as His Word 
and His Work, whose respective testimonies are equally val- 
uable as evidence that they both are creatures of the one only 
eternal God. 

I DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES 
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS GOD-CREATED 

What nature testifies at every turn, from the imponderable 
ether to flashing suns, from revolving electron to pulsating 
life and perceiving soul, is emphatically asserted in the revealed 
Word of God. How definitely does the writer of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews state this in verse three of the eleventh chapter ! 
''By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by 
the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out 
of things which appear." This clearly has reference to Gene- 
sis 1:1 and reasserts what is there so unequivocally declared, 
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." 
Here is no argumentation, no speculation. How refreshing to 
come upon such a positive statement! As already intimated, 
posit a living, personal, infinite and almighty God, and every 
difficulty will vanish away like the mist before the sunlight. 
Put the God-factor into your equation of cosmic potentiality, 
and the universe exists intelligibly and your problem is solved. 
The Ex nihilo nihil fit does indeed still fit, but only from the 
conditioned view-point of man, or of any rational creature. 
But, from the view-point of the Creator-God, Who spake and 
it was done, it is inapplicable. This is not saying that God 
does not use the materials and laws, previously created by 
Him, as already noted, as dependent causes, as He no doubt 
mainly does since His first or initial creation, to work out 
His infinite plans. But it means that He is not limited to 



28o Creation Ex Nihilo 

such existing materials and laws, or that His use of them is 
not a necessary use. And, of course, when these materials 
and laws did not exist, as at the moment before primordial 
creation, He first gave them their being, so that all existing 
things are the product of His creative flat. 

The nihil fit in that philosophic axiom, as viewed from the 
side of man, becomes fecit omnia when vie?wed in the light of 
the divine fiat. Ex nihilo nihil fit, without the divine power, 
is indeed still true in human consciousness and experience, if 
the fit be regarded as abstract or purely impersonal, and trans- 
lated nothing happens, as is the implied case with the material- 
ist. For, even according to the theistic conception of creation 
nothing happens from nothing; but where nothing existed be- 
fore, an existence was called into being or caused by God. 
But, as applied by the Christian to the problem of primal 
creation, and translated nothing is made (so as to imply by 
God), it is not true. It must then be changed to, or sup- 
planted by. Ex nihilo Deus omnia fecit. Thus, where nothing 
existed before, there, after God's creative Word, stood forth 
the elemental materials out of which He fashioned all worlds 
in the course of six time periods. And, in a real sense, then 
only did time begin. For, as time is measured duration, dura- 
tion by cycles, centuries, years, etc., there was really no meas- 
ured time before the creation of the measuring physical cosmos. 

It has, however, been stoutly contended by some writers 
who, in a sense, accept the Scriptures, that the passages of 
Scripture already quoted, as also all others that bear upon 
this subject, can have reference only to a development — 
whether by a personal supramundane Deity or by an imper- 
sonal something inherent in, and perhaps cohering with, mat- 
ter — from the material chaos eternally existing. This latter 
view might be designated as a subtle form of pantheism. In- 
stead of explaining again, however, the scientific absurdity in- 
volved in such a statement, already shown, let us now briefly 
examine the contrary testimony of the divine Word itself. 

II TWO FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATES OR 
AXIOMATIC TRUTHS OF THE SCRIPTURES 

In a general way it might be said that the Scriptures no- 
where attempt to prove the existence of a living personal and 



Testimony of the Scriptures 281 

eternal God ; nor do they attempt to prove the creation in time, 
ex nihiloj of the existing universe by Him. They take these 
two fundamental truths, which might be regarded as both sci- 
entifically and theologically axiomatic, practically for granted. 
They are the fundamental postulates for divine Revelation, 
without which all would be inexplicable. Nor should their dem- 
onstration in the least be necessary, any more than that of 
any axiom that may underlie reasoning anywhere else. But, 
the intellectual vanity and pride of man in attempting to go 
beyond what is divinely revealed and necessary, often demand 
it. No, the universe is; and therefore surely God, the uni- 
verse-Creator, must be. Therefore, the Scriptures assume 
these two primal facts as their great twofold premise. In 
a royal decree, or any other human document, its author does 
not regard it necessary first to prove his existence and by elabo- 
rate argument to convince the reader that he is the author, or 
that the document had a beginning. The existence of the 
document itself presupposes the existence of its author and 
that it was produced. Therefore, these facts are so self-evi- 
dent as to be taken for granted, without demonstration, by 
the intelligent reader. The same it is only reasonable to ex- 
pect to be true of God's Word, that document which the 
avowed skeptic must acknowledge to be immeasurably above 
any merely human literature, as to truth and wisdom and 
self-consistency. 

If man can say, Cogito, ergo sum, without further demon- 
stration, should God not be able to say, Cogito, ergo sum: et 
natura est, ergo creata est? Then, why should not man be 
able to accept this implied dictum of God in His Word and 
re-echo, iDeus cogitat, ergo est; et natura est, ergo a Deo^' 
creata est? Indeed, by the very same reasoning by which man 
is able to say Cogito, ergo sum, he is also able to add with 
equal confidence of truthfulness, Sum, ergo Deus Creator est, 
or in the words of Derzhavin, "I am, O God, and surely 
Thou must be!" 

The chief purpose of the Scriptures is to unfold to man the 
divine plan of salvation, and incidentally to reveal only so 
much of his own and nature's origin as is necessary to make 
intelligible that plan and his destiny in accordance with it. 
Thus, the Scriptures refer to only as much of these, and use 
only as much of human history, as is necessary to constitute 



282 Creation Ex Nihilo 

the great scaffolding upon which to construct and unfold or 
consummate the divine plan for the salvation of the human 
race. 

And what is true of the fundamental postulates of the 
Scriptures, has a parallel also in what might be called a fun- 
damental postulate in nature. Nowhere does God in the 
ordinary course of nature avowedly present a direct tangible 
proof of His existence. Here, too, that existence is assumed 
to be self-evident from His created work. And yet, indirectly, 
from the cumulative evidence of nature, which we have al- 
ready shown to be altogether convincing to the rational mind 
that will accept certain axioms of reason on faith. He is 
proved to exist, thus making altogether unnecessary any fur- 
ther direct tangible proof. Thus, as reason must be joined 
with faith in the study of Scripture, so must faith be joined 
with reason in the study of nature. But, as faith and reason, 
united in the study of God's work, lead to knowledge; so will 
reason and faith, united in the study of God's Word, lead to 
knowledge; and that knowledge becomes one in the enhanced 
knowledge of God. We might as well, therefore, not look for 
demonstrative direct proof of His workings in and through 
nature. In the words of St. George Mivart, "Thus we 
might expect that it would be a vain task to seek anywhere in 
Nature for evidence of Divine action, such that no one could 
sanely deny it. God will not allow Himself to be caught 
at the bottom of any man's crucible, or yield Himself to the 
experiments of gross-minded and irreverent inquirers. The 
natural, like the supernatural, revelation appeals to the whole 
of man's mental nature and not to the reason alone'' (Gene- 
sis of Species J p. 287). 

We should, therefore, not look for a definite proof, in the 
Christian Scriptures, of God and of the creation of the world 
ex nihilo by Him, as these two great facts constitute the 
manifest background of the Scriptures from Genesis to Reve- 
lation. They are everywhere implied as the two fundamental 
facts that are so evident as to need no demonstration, be- 
cause all else is built upon them. And yet, the Scriptures are 
sufficiently explicit even as to these facts to leave no room 
for honest difference of opinion as to their meaning. 



Testimony of the Scriptures 283 

III THE THREE ABSOLUTE CREATIONS OF 
THE SCRIPTURES 

We have said that there are men who, In a sense, accept 
the Scriptures, but who hold that creation according to the 
Scriptures consisted only in a development from eternally ex- 
isting chaos. It should be needless to say, however, that they 
have far from succeeded in establishing their point. It is 
indeed true, as has been contended, that the word bara in 
Genesis 1:1, translated created, has in its root the idea of 
cutting, shaping or fashioning — also crystallized in the Ger- 
man schajfen. But, that is not necessarily sufficient to limit 
it to the production of something from material at hand. In- 
deed, no other words in any language could absolutely express 
the idea of an absolute creation, or of a creation ex nihilo. 
Human speech is necessarily phenomenal and figurative, and 
is always the product of consciousness and experience, to ex- 
press ideas that come within their range, as already pointed 
out in an earlier chapter. But here is an idea that does not, 
and could not, come within the range of human consciousness 
and experience; for these can have to do with things only that 
are, or that appear, and not with the origination of things — 
as already shown. 

And yet, it cannot but be very plain that the word bara is 
used in a discriminative sense in the creation story, to dis- 
tinguish it from asa, the usual word for shaping, transforming, 
or fashioning — as is correctly held by many exegetes, and as 
was also wxll pointed out by Arnold Guyot. Thus, the word 
bara is used in verse i, of what must be considered the primal 
creation of matter. It is used again in verse 21, of the bring- 
ing into being of life. And to this the natural scientist is 
necessarily driven by his utter inability to account, by natural 
processes, for life in even its most elementary forms, as we 
have seen in a former chapter. And, once more, the word 
bara is used in verse 27, of the bringing forth of man. And, 
in other places, where only unfolding or fashioning from al- 
ready existing, previously created, materials, is spoken of, the 
word asa is used. It should be plain, therefore, that the sacred 
writer was moved by the Spirit of God thus to use these two 
terms, the best available, with some purpose of discrimination. 
And that purpose cannot be mistaken, to have been to distin- 



284 Creation Ex Nihilo 

guish between a bringing forth ex nihilo of something alto- 
gether new and the bringing forth in new form of what had 
already had previous existence in its elemental material or 
substance. Even where bara is elsewhere used in the Scrip- 
tures, where the ex nihilo is not necessarily implied by con- 
trast with an amj it is nevertheless of God's work, while of 
man's work the asa or some similar word is employed. 

Thus, the bringings forth of elemental matter, of primal 
life, and of the immortal soul, are set apart as different from 
other bringings forth or mere unfoldings. These three can- 
not be explained in any other way than as creations ex nihilo. 
They are the true primal creations, and include the elements 
of all existing things, from which He brought forth everything 
else. And, even if this latter bringing forth is to be regarded 
as simply an unfolding and developing by secondary laws or 
forces, it must have been, as already explained, no less so by 
the same supreme divine Will. 

This latter position has been unreservedly and reverently 
accepted by some of the world's greatest naturalists. Thus, 
the great botanist Asa Gray was a firm believer in the Divine 
origin of nature and the continued Divine immanence in 
nature. He was a thorough believer in God's operations 
through secondary causes in the constituted present order of 
the universe. He considered it not in the least against the 
Creator's action through secondary causes, that He called na- 
ture into being by omnipotent fiat; nor did he regard the pres- 
ent order of nature in its myriad secondary causes as any evi- 
dence against that primal creation. Many striking passages 
might be cited from his works, especially his Darwiniana, 
1884, if^ proof of his attitude on this point. And Sir Oliver 
Lodge, realizing that the denial of the Divine immanence is 
chiefly based upon the so-called law of the supposedly abso- 
lute conservation of energy, points out, in the following words, 
that such a conclusion from this law of physics is totally with- 
out warrant: "The serious mistake which people are apt to 
make concerning this law [Conservation of Energy] is to 
imagine that it denies the possibility of guidance, control, 
or directing agency, whereas really it has nothing to say on 
these topics: it relates to amount alone. Philosophers have 
been far too apt to jump to the conclusion that because energy 
is constant, therefore no guidance is possible, so that all 



Testimony of the Scriptures 285 

psychological or other interference is precluded. Physicists, 
however, know better" (Life and Matter, pp. 20-21). For 
an examination of the supposed invariability of the law of 
conservation see Chapter VI. 

Some men's conception of evidence for God in nature, is 
that alone of a direct miraculous interference with its ordinary 
laws, or of a superseding of those laws in special acts by 
higher or supernatural laws. Such miraculous operations 
should indeed constitute altogether convincing evidence of 
supernatural power, or of a transcendent and yet immanent 
Deity. But there are other evidences in nature, as we have 
shown, for the operations of Divine intelligence and power. 
Indeed, the general absence of the miraculous in nature is it- 
self a striking, and indeed convincing, proof that it is the work 
of an all-wise, all-powerful, unchanging Creator. Its very 
perfection as a creature makes miracles unnecessary for its 
ordinary operations. And hence, their very absence in nature 
testifies of its creation by a perfect Being. Hence, the ordi- 
nary operations of nature, no less surely, though less appar- 
ently or manifestly, than extraordinary operations in miracles, 
testify to the fact that they are from and by a Deity, Who 
also must first have instituted universal nature with all its 
myriad manifold laws for these so-called ordinary operations. 
Thus, the evidence for a God in nature is overwhelming that 
nature is from God, and that all its operations are by His 
unerring concurrence, and indeed ultimately also by His im- 
posed power. 

IV THE EVIDENT CONCLUSION 

We have thus shown that the evidence of the Christian 
Scriptures is in full accord with that of nature and that of the 
human mind; namely, that the universe had a beginning and 
that it was created ex nihilo by the omnific fiat of a supreme 
Being. We have also shown that this is the conclusion to 
which many unprejudiced men of science are unalterably 
driven. Nor can any other theory of the origin of the universe 
command respect from thinking men. 

Any theory of self-existence would not only not explain the 
universe; but such theory would be a contradiction in terms, 
or an impossible absurdity. Even Herbert Spencer, though 



286 Creation Ex Nihilo 

he would not openly accept the thelstic theory of the universe, 
especially in terms of Scriptural revelation, was forced to 
acknowledge that the atheistic theory is untenable, and that 
the mystery of the universe and its origin is unfathomable. 

Although Spencer elsewhere urges an objection against the 
theistic theory of the universe, because of its inconceivableness, 
that does not invalidate his position against the atheistic theory. 
If it were a mere matter of conceivableness then there might 
be some weight in the objection. But it is a matter of fitness, 
whether the atheistic or the theistic theory best explains the 
universe and its origin. And, as to this, there is but one 
choice; namely, the theistic theory, as we have demonstrated. 
Nor is this only a matter of fitness; but it is even more a mat- 
ter of fact, whether we can comprehend it or not. Moreover, 
even if self-existence were admitted, it would not account for 
the universe, and must therefore be ruled out of court. 

Nature and Revelation are thus seen to agree that the uni- 
verse was created ex nihilo by some supreme Being. And, if 
ever by the mouth of two witnesses a truth can be established, 
it is in this case. And, moreover, their very agreement on 
this point should be a convincing proof of their truthfulness. 
Thus, viewed from the hither or manward side, both nature 
and Revelation, like two inerrant Index-fingers, point to the 
same creative Personality beyond, and yet truly within, them 
both. And that Personality is He Whom Revelation calls 
ElohitUj Jehovahj Lord, and sets forth as a triune God, Cre- 
ator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier — Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 
And, conversely, viewed from the yonder or Godward side, 
both nature and Revelation are alike His creatures as His 
revealed and revealing Work and Word. Then, as nature 
constitutes the external basis of scientific Investigation, even 
as Revelation constitutes the outward basis of religion, can 
there be any real conflict between true science as founded upon 
nature and true religion as founded upon Revelation? Nature 
and Revelation, true science and true religion, should not be 
contradictory, but rather complementary, to each other. 

To a consideration of the above question, which Is of great 
Importance to this utilitarian — we might almost say, mate- 
rialistic and antl-theistic — age, we shall now proceed In what 
constitutes our closing chapter. 



CHAPTER X 

CONCLUSION: NO REAL CONFLICT BETWEEN 
TRUE SCIENCE AND REVELATION 

From what we have seen thus far the inference can readily 
be drawn that there is in reality no conflict between Revela- 
tion and true science, as is often asserted. To a brief develop- 
ment of this point we shall devote this concluding chapter. 

I THEIR SPHERES TOTALLY DIFFERENT 

Revelation has primarily to do with man's spiritual nature, 
and with his origin and destiny. Physical science has primarily 
to do with man's physical nature and with his physical en- 
vironment in the existing universe. Thus, physical science has 
little or nothing to do with the human soul, or the spiritual 
nature of man, as indeed not with any spiritual entity. And, 
hence, the existence of such an entity as the soul and the exist- 
ence of a supreme transcendent and immanent creative and 
sustaining Personality, lie wholly beyond the normal realm 
of scientific search. Therefore, as far as mere physical science 
is concerned, they might be said to be non-existent, or they 
might or might not exist. In the words of an able scientific 
apologist, "The mere study of physical nature does not carry 
us beyond matter and its processes. Its most elaborate meth- 
ods can give us no apprehension of God, or soul, or moral 
sense. So far as mere physical science can discern, 'if God 
had slept a million years, all things would be the same.' No 
telescope or mJcroscope can enable us to detect freewill or any 
other attribute of mind. Physical science can only tell us of 
physical objects, physical properties, and physical laws" (Rob- 
ert Flint: Anti-Theistic TheorieSj p. io6). 

However, physical science, as the body of systematized re- 
sults or conclusions from an attentive study or contemplation 

287 



288 Creation Ex Nihilo 

of nature, is itself a conclusive evidence that the contemplat- 
ing mind or personality is an entity different from the merely 
physical nature which is thus contemplated. Attention to 
something implies attention by some one; and the two in such 
an act are necessarily separate and different. If the human 
soul were in essence merely a part of physical nature, then we 
should have the implied contradiction that in so far as the 
soul would be a part of physical nature, physical nature would, 
in scientific research, be contemplating itself. Or, a myste- 
riously conscious fragment of physical nature would be giving 
attention to the unconscious residue. Then, whence or how 
did that mysteriously conscious fragment of physical nature 
attain consciousness? And, while it is true that the soul of 
man can attentively contemplate itself, it must not be for- 
gotten that it does so as a conscious personality, as also it at- 
tentively contemplates the environing physical universe. 

But, as this point, that the human soul is a spiritual entity 
totally different from its physical environment and even its 
physical embodiment, is fully established in our second and 
third chapters, we shall not further here develop the same. 
And, of course, in the light of all the arguments of the pre- 
ceding chapters on that point, it is equally unnecessary here 
to set forth any further proofs of the existence of a spiritual 
Personality above nature, by Whom alone nature exists, that 
supreme Being Whom the Christian adores as God. 

Thus physical science, as such, is not concerned with God 
and the human soul, as entities whose existence is, however, as 
certain (and even more so) as that of the physical universe, 
whose Creator and Lord the former is and the latter appar- 
ently its created crown. And, as long as physical science does 
not pretend to arrogate to itself the whole realm of reality and 
possible knowledge, it remains within its legitimate sphere. 
And, therefore, even as the existence of a Deity apart from, 
and even within, the material universe, and the co-existence 
of the human soul and physical nature, are not in the least 
in conflict with the legitimate results of physical science, who 
can limit the possible existence, within and beyond the phys- 
ical universe, even of other beings altogether inconceivable by 
us? 

Such transcendent entities, as also God and the human soul, 



Conclusion: No Real Conflict 289 

because not governed by physical laws, could in no way affect 
our physical sensorium. Not being limited by time and space 
relations, they might co-exist with, and around, us and through- 
out, as well as beyond, the ultimate physical universe — and this 
without in the least affecting human experience and conscious- 
ness. And, of course, they could not be or become objects 
of scientific knowledge. As experience, through its proper 
avenues of approach, and consciousness, have their necessary 
limitations, as sources of knowledge, in their limited points of 
contact with self and nature, so their bodyings forth in the 
pronouncements of phj^sical science do not exhaust reality. 
Hence, the great whole of reality can never come within their 
compass. And this is even true of physical reality. But, as to 
the transcendent hyperphysical or spiritual realities, conscious- 
ness and experience, unaided — and therefore physical science — 
would forever have to remain without a point of contact, and 
therefore in total ignorance. No one should, therefore, at- 
tempt either to set a limit to existence by his limited expe- 
rience or to make his finite reason the measure of the im- 
measurably complex universe of the infinite and eternal God. 

A person born without the sense of sight cannot see light 
and color. He cannot even form any real conception of 
them. To him all is darkness. And, as far as he could by 
his own powers discover, both light and color would have no 
existence or would belong to the same category as darkness. 
The man born without the sense of hearing can neither hear 
sound nor can he even form any correct conception of sound 
and music. And thus, to a blind and deaf individual, even 
this very tangible physical world is an entity altogether dif- 
ferent from the reality. Many of its marvelous phenomena 
of beauty are to him totally non-existent. And if, perchance, 
some explanation or revelation to him of these things were 
attempted by a seeing and hearing personality, these phe- 
nomena would yet in a sense be utterly inconceivable by him. 
He can only by touching, etc., acquire some indefinite idea of 
grosser forms and movements. But he could not perceive 
even any effect of those subtle marvelous vibrations that pro- 
duce light and color and music. 

Such an individual lives in a world of marvelous beauty, 
but he beholds it not, nor can he even form any proper con- 
ception of it. But, surely, it would be almost unpardonable 



^90 Creation Ex Nihilo 

presumption on his part to deny the existence of the glorious 
rainbow in the heavens and to argue with an entranced auditor 
against the existence of the majestic symphonies of a Beethoven. 
For these things that lie beyond his limited physical senses, he 
must needs accept the testimony of those who have the neces- 
sary senses of perception to know their reality. 

Like that blind and deaf individual, we stand amid the 
wonders of nature. Though we can perceive, in light and 
color and music, a minute fraction of the effect produced by 
waves of ether and waves of air, yet these physical waves them- 
selves lie totally beyond even our natural sense-organs. Like 
that blind and deaf Individual, who through his sense of touch, 
etc., can form some idea of his physical environment, so we 
with our limited sense-organs can acquire some knowledge of 
the surrounding universe. But, as in his case, our limited 
senses permit of but a very partial knowledge, and beyond 
their range there are realities even in physical nature con- 
cerning which we can only speculate and which we may never 
know. We are like children watching a game, from a point 
some steps away, through a small crack or knothole of a 
boarded-enclosure. All appears fragmentary and partial. Im- 
measurably the greater part of the universe, from the in- 
finitesimally small to the universal whole, in ten thousand 
marvels, lies beyond the range of the whole outfit of our phys- 
ical senses, or is a physically intangible reality. Thus, the 
visible light or color spectrum constitutes the record of but 
a minute fraction of the whole range of the mysteriously won- 
derful perpetual dance of the imponderable ether. As we 
showed in a former chapter, it constitutes but one of the 
octaves of the many-octaved key-board of vibrations. And 
yet, the other octaves no less truly exists as with our own 
invented tools of investigation we are more and more dis- 
covering from their effects; but these octaves themselves we 
cannot perceive. If our eyes could be so adjusted as to en- 
able us to behold the whole range of this fundamental reality, 
vistas of visions hitherto inconceivable would lie before our 
astonished gaze. And what is true of the fragmentary na- 
ture of our knowledge, through the avenue of the very limited 
visible spectrum, of these otherwise intangible realities of the 
physical universe, is true of man's possible knowledge of the 
vast realm of nature everywhere. 



Conclusion: No Real Conflict 291 

If, then, our knowledge of physical realities Is so fragmen- 
tary and indefinite, who can assign limits to possible entities 
transcending physical nature and all our physical conceptions 
of them, even as the gorgeous rainbow and the entrancing 
symphony transcend the senses and even the very conception of 
the Individual born blind and deaf? As our additional senses 
of apprehension enable us to perceive vastly more than is 
possible on the part of the man born blind and deaf, so with 
added sense-organs might an Individual perceive even vastly 
more than is possible on our part. Thus, with sense-organs so 
adjusted or attuned as to enable one to perceive a billionfold 
more, both In minutise and In range, than Is normally pos- 
sible, and with other equally sensitive superadded sense-organs, 
many of the to us theoretical subtleties of the infinitesimal 
world, as well as of the cosmic whole, might become tangible 
realities. And so might we conceive of superadded transcen- 
dent spiritual faculties. If not confined within our physical 
organism. And thus the transcendent glories of spiritual reali- 
ties, of angelic beings, and even of God, might entrance the 
astonished perceiving personality. But, needless to say, both 
such added physical and such spiritual organs of perception 
are not In accord with the provisions and needs of our present 
state. Hence, such realities would necessarily not come within 
the range of our direct knowledge. Such realities would, there- 
fore, not be objects of normal scientific search and therefore 
not of normal scientific knowledge. 

Hence, as the spheres of physical science and Revelation are 
totally different, there can be no real conflict between them. 
And, therefore, also, it is as becoming to the mere physical 
scientist not arbitrarily to deny the existence of the transcen- 
dent spiritual realities, as it Is to the scientifically untrained 
Christian not arbitrarily to deny the existence of such well- 
established scientific realities as the lumlniferous ether and the 
force of gravitation. As the reverent Christian must not stand 
in judgment upon the more definitely established results of 
science, so must the enthusiastic scientist not stand in judgment 
upon religion and Its transcendental, but altogether reasonable 
and divinely consistent, tenets. Indeed, the scientist should re- 
joice In the knowledge and acceptance of these profound 
spiritual truths, in confirming and supplementing his visions of 



292 Creation Ex Nihilo 

God in nature, and should become reverently religious. So, the 
Christian should become even all the more profoundly re- 
ligious, as with sanctified understanding he is permitted, with 
the scientist as his guide, to read God's thoughts after Him 
also in universal nature and to trace His plans by following 
His footprints almost to His throne of wisdom and power. 
Nor should there be anything to hinder the scientist from 
being a devout Christian, and the Christian from being an 
enthusiastic scientist. 

n PHYSICAL SCIENCE NOT DIRECTLY CON- 
CERNED WITH THE ORIGIN OF NATURE 

Revelation deals chiefly with spiritual essence and ultimate 
Cause. Physical science deals with physical essence and sec- 
ondary causes. And, as far as pertains to our general subject, 
the one is concerned with the origin of nature and of man 
as nature's crown, the other with nature's methods of opera- 
tion as man's physical background. 

It is, therefore, not the province of science to deal with 
ultimate origins. Its province is limited to already existing 
things. It can at the most trace things only to their existing 
elements; but it is limited to the hither side of its own as- 
sumed primeval chaos. It deals with the universe only as an 
effect and in its operations of secondary causes, but with its 
First Cause science, as such, is not concerned. And, indeed, 
every discovery of science is only a discovery of other effects 
or secondary causes. But Revelation steps back of that chaos 
and speaks to us also of its origination. And this, from the 
Godward side, is definitely done only by inspiration ; but on the 
manward side, its meaning can really be grasped by faith 
alone. Thus the believer need never fear the definite results 
of true science. 

That the question of the origin of the universe lies beyond 
the possibility of physical science to answer, is held by many 
scientists. Thus James Wier, in speaking of ultimate origins, 
expresses himself as follows: "In recent years much attention 
has been devoted to certain speculative theories with respect to 
the origin and ultimate nature of matter and energy. . . . 
But it is surely unnecessary to point out that all questions re- 
lating to origins are essentially outside the pale of true science. 



Conclusion: No Real Conflict 293 

Any hypotheses which may be thus formulated have not 
the support of experimental facts in their conclusions; they 
belong rather to the realm of speculative philosophy than to 
that of science" (The Energy System of Matter, 1912, p. 3). 
So, in line with these statements are also the following words 
of Alexander Humboldt: "The mystery and unsolved prob- 
lem of how things came to be does not belong to the em- 
pirical province of objective research, the description of what 
is." And no less emphatic are the words of Carl Snyder — 
though his reference to supposed Hebraic tradition might be 
misinterpreted — as follows: "Probably it is among the naivetes 
of our intellectual childhood to suppose that the pursuit of the 
scientific method will ever bring us any nearer to the ultimate 
mystery of creation than were the favored children of Hebraic 
tradition. Doubtless, no more complete Illusion ever possessed 
the human mind than that through its operations we may pene- 
trate the origin of things" {The World Machine j p. 398). 

There is a sense in which philosophy begins where science 
ends, for it attempts to unify the ascertained facts of the 
sciences and to Interpret their meanings for the explanation of 
the universe and of reality. And, for that matter, whenever 
inferences or conclusions of philosophy become definitely estab- 
lished, then they cease to be speculations of philosophy and 
become accepted facts or laws of science. But, while philos- 
ophy sometimes boldly steps forth and sagely pretends to 
speak its ipse dixit on these truly transcendental matters, it 
must nevertheless with trembling tread step back from this 
final borderland between the conditioned and the uncondi- 
tioned, between existence and its origination, between humanly 
attainable and humanly unattainable knowledge, and with 
mufHed voice exclaim, "I can go no farther." Thus unen- 
lightened reason must here truly say in the words of Du Bols- 
Reymond, "Ignoramus," and "Ignorablmus." 

This Inability of unenlightened human reason to account 
for ultimate origins and to attain reality, is well illustrated in 
the following statement by Bergson, which amounts to a 
philosophers confession before the exalted altar of unattainable 
truth: "I have no sooner commenced to philosophize than I ask 
myself why I exist; and when I take account of the intimate 
connection in which I stand to the rest of the universe, the 



294 Creation Ex Nihilo 

difficulty IS only pushed back, for I want to know why the 
universe exists; and if I refer the universe to a Principle im- 
manent or transcendent that supports it or creates it, my 
thought rests on this principle only a few moments, for the 
same problem recurs, this time in its full breadth and general- 
ity: Whence comes it, and how can it be understood, that any- 
thing exists? Even here, in the present work, when matter 
has been defined as a kind of descent, this descent as the 
interruption of a rise, this rise itself as a growth, when finally 
a Principle of creation has been put at the base of things, 
the same question springs up: How — why does this principle 
exist rather than nothing" {Berffsons Creative Evolution, 
Mitchell, 191 1, p. 275). 

Surely, in the light of these facts it behooves both scientists 
and philosophers to be humble. In the presence of the mys- 
teries of nature that rise Sphinx-like before the astonished 
vision in unapproachable glory, they must needs be respect- 
ful. And, before the infinitely more wonderful Being Who 
must be in and through and over all, they should stand in rever- 
ential awe. Here is no place for sage scientific utterances 
concerning those transcendental truths about nature and na- 
ture's God, of which only by a declaration from the very 
Throne man has been vouchsafed fragmentary glimpses. In- 
deed, science and philosophy may be regarded as the two 
branches of the hyperbola of possibly merely human knowl- 
edge, which never reach, though they may ever approach, the 
asymptotes, or straight lines, of absolute reality and truth, 
whose point of meeting or centre is God. 

Ill THE APPARENT CONFLICT DUE TO UN- 
PROVED PREMISES AND UNWARRANTED 
CONCLUSIONS 

Whatever apparent conflict between Revelation and science 
there is, has arisen from the drawing of unwarranted philoso- 
phic conclusions from certain unproved scientific theories as 
premises, or from philosophic misinterpretations of some scien- 
tific facts. Thus, in adopting as a working hypothesis the 
theory of evolution, many apparently fair-minded men have 
been lost in a contemplation of the wheels and spindles of 



Conclusion: No Real Conflict 295 

its supposed mighty machinery. Instead of regarding such 
supposed evolution as the Creator's possible modus operandi, 
they have come to treat It as though It w^ere Itself a causal divin- 
ity. Thus, in dealing exclusively w^Ith physical nature, it has 
become to them the great All and the only reality, behind and 
beyond which the God of the Scriptures Is totally eclipsed. In 
contemplating the creature they have come to worship and serve 
It more than, and even to the exclusion of, its Creator. 

With Sadducean definlteness these men have come to deny 
the existence of angels and spirits, yea and even of their own 
souls as spiritual entities, as well as of God. Energy, as mani- 
fested in the various forces of nature, Is to them an eternal or 
self-existing entity, together with matter as its basis or carrier, 
instead of the expression or Impression upon it of the eternal 
God, perhaps chiefly in the form of relative positions of the 
subdivisions of matter for consequent adjustments. To them, 
the universe Is not only the beginning of all things, but also the 
ultimate end and aim. Man they regard as its own highest 
product, instead of its superadded lord, for whose development 
for a higher sphere physical nature, at least in part, was very 
apparently ordained. Their conclusion that the universe is 
uncreated, from the supposed evidence of the uniformity of 
nature and the apparent persistence of energy and matter, is 
about as conclusive as that of a certain college professor, who 
contended that the fact that no one had ever seen a monkey 
turn or develop Into a man Is a conclusive proof against 
Darwinism. 

If an Infinitesimal being, endowed with reason, had its 
abode somewhere within a giant printing press, its reasoning 
might be similar to that of some atheistic scientists. To such 
a being, a second might be as long as to us a century, and an 
inch like millions of miles. To It, the printing press would 
be a universe, with absolute uniformity of operation and with 
apparent conservation of matter and energy. A thousand 
generations of its beings, stretching over many thousands of its 
years (equivalent to but an hour with us) had seen no change 
in Its laws, and therefore no miracle. A beginning and an 
end would be to them Inconceivable. It must be eternal, and 
therefore uncreated and also indestructible. And, as for a ma- 
chinist or a printer above or beyond it, no one had ever seen 
him, and what is more there would apparently be no need of 



296 Creation Ex Nihilo 

him. No machinist; no personal operator; no maker! The 
machine is supposedly self-operating, and apparently develops 
a complexity of phenomena. Therefore, it is perhaps itself 
some blind divinity. And perhaps the v^hole is the product 
of chance. And, v^^hat wonderful discoveries, on the part of 
its rational infinitesimal inhabitants, as to the running of that 
universe printing-press, and w^hat sage philosophy as to reality/ 

Like that infinitesimal being, man is an infinitesimal creature 
in a comparatively Immeasurably vaster universe. He reasons 
and loses himself In contemplating its vast machinery. Cen- 
turies of uniformity and conservation he takes to be conclu- 
sive evidence that such uniformity and conservation have al- 
v^^ays been and will always be. By natural inference he con- 
cludes that it must be all, and the only reality. No Machin- 
ist; no Operator; no God! 

But what are man's littleness and duration in God's mighty 
universe! They are totally inadequate to establish sufficient 
data for conclusions as to Infinity and eternity. And, as com- 
pared with the expanse and duration of the whole Immeasur- 
ably complex creation of the infinite, eternal and omnipotent 
God, the universe known to us might be but a very minute 
part, our solar system but an atom of planetary electrons, and 
a thousand centuries but a moment. 

In line with the above view are the following suggestive 
words of Sir Oliver Lodge: "If the Deity has a sense of 
humour, as undoubtedly He has. He must be amused at the 
remarkable philosophising faculty recently developed by the 
creature, which on this planet has become most vigorously self- 
conscious and is In the early stages of progress towards higher 
things — a philosophising faculty so acute as to lead him to 
mistrust and throw away information conveyed to him by the 
very instruments which have enabled him to become what he 
Is. . . . He must be pleased, also, with the enterprise of those 
eager philosophers who ... on the strength of a few years' 
superficial experience on a planet, by the aid of the sense 
organs which they themselves perceive to be Illusory whenever 
the actual reality of things Is In contemplation, proceed to 
develop the theory that the whole has come into being without 
direct intelligence, . . . that no Deity exists, and that it is 
absurd to postulate the existence of a comprehensive and all- 
inclusive guiding Mind'* (Life and Matter, pp. 65-67). 



Conclusion: No Real Conflict 297 

Surely, science loses all just claims to be called knowledge 
when it would sagely declare that the universe is eternal and 
self-existent and that there is no God. And, as for proud 
philosophy, it can with truth be said that some of its con- 
clusions are manufactured ex nthilo, or from the purely non- 
existent. It often pretends to stand in judgment over both 
science and Revelation, and is often as much in conflict with the 
one as with the other. In the search for truth and reality, 
systems of philosophy have, moreover, been pitted against sys- 
tems. Meanwhile, ultimate reality and truth have eluded 
every merely human search, as the rainbow eludes the un- 
tutored child approaching it over the hill-tops in search of its 
traditional imbedded pot of gold. 

IV TRUE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY AS WIT- 
NESSES FOR REVELATION 

Both science and philosophy, however, furnish the Chris- 
tian believer, as we have shown, with unassailable evidence that 
the testimony of nature, as far as it goes, and the spontaneous 
faith of his heart, agree with the Revelation of Holy Scrip- 
ture. Their united testimony, moreover, points him to that 
Revelation for the only reasonable definite solution of this 
and other otherwise perplexing and indeed insoluble problems. 
And the answer of the Scriptures is that the existing uni- 
verse was created out of nothing by the Christian's ever ador- 
able Almighty God. And thus, true science must always neces- 
sarily corroborate the divine Word, for nature and Scripture 
are both from the same Author, the one constituting the great 
volume of His Work and the other that of His Word. 

Indeed, as true faith in God must have its real objective 
counterpart in the God it grasps, so must a true science of 
nature have its true objective counterpart in the nature it 
describes. And, as God and nature are related as Creator and 
creature, as we have shown, the object of faith can be no lesi 
a reality than that of science, but rather more. And yet, 
both faith and science must be in accord with reason. There- 
fore, the enlightened reason of man must be matched by the 
facts of both faith and science. Thus, as the reason of God 
is reflected both in nature and in the reason of man, the 
universe must correspond with faith, as well as with enlight- 
ened human reason. 



298 Creation Ex Nihilo 

V A PLACE FOR FAITH IN SCIENCE, AS WELL 
AS IN RELIGION 

As already intimated, faith in some form is necessary in 
science, as well as in religion. In all his reasoning the man 
of science must exercise faith. He must believe the evidence 
of his senses, whether that evidence be direct, or indirect through 
his instruments of investigation. He must believe in the uni- 
form operations of the accepted laws of nature, and by faith 
he must accept those laws. He must believe that like causes 
are always followed by like effects, or that like effects must 
have been preceded by like causes. He must believe in the 
continuity of his own personal identity, the evidence of con- 
sciousness, and the reliability of the laws of thought. He must 
continually set up, and work according to, theories that he may 
never be able to prove; and he must accept as parts of work- 
ing hypotheses many supposed elements of knowledge that for- 
ever elude demonstration. In all these things he must believe 
in order that he may know. Faith Is for him thus in many 
respects the highway to knowledge. But his faith, or funda- 
mental and often apparently Instinctive beliefs, like those of 
the man of God, must be matched by objective reality to be- 
come a safe guide to scientific certainty. In the words of 
Bertrand Russell, "All knowledge, we find, must be built upon 
our instinctive beliefs, and If these are rejected, nothing Is left. 
But among our instinctive beliefs some are much stronger 
than others, while many have, by habit and association, be- 
come entangled with other beliefs, not really instinctive, but 
falsely supposed to be part of what is believed Instinctively" 
{The Problems of Philosophy,, p. 39). 

In this respect, there is a real sense In which science and 
religion must approach truth from the same point of view; 
and both must approach it with humility. The man of God 
says, upon the evidence of God's revealed Word, I believe that 
I may know. The man of science must no less say, upon the 
evidence of God's revealed Work In nature and in himself, 
/ believe that I may know (though there Is a sense in which 
he may say, I know that I may believe). And upon their 
respective data, the elements or foundations of which rest 
upon faith alone, both grow from more to more. And their 
ultimate goal, if both are honest in their search, will, re- 



Conclusion: No Real Conflict 299 

spectlvely through His Word and through His Work — His 
Revelation and His cosmic nature — be the God and Author 
of both nature and Revelation. They thus start together, or 
upon a common principle, and after apparently foUow^ing 
very different routes or avenues of approach, they must needs 
meet together vv^here they end. And there is no reason why 
the man of science and the man of God should not be one. 
Indeed, the man of science, above all others, should be a 
reverent man of God. 

The man of God, in following whithersoever faith in God's 
Word leads him, need not fear the legitimate end whither faith 
in God's Work also leads him, as both will lead to God. 
Nor need the man of science, in tracing the footprints of his 
Creator after Him in His creation, fear with all humility to 
follow the leadings of faith through Revelation's trailing 
clouds of glory to His throne. The man of God can be an 
enthusiastic scientist, as already noted, and the man of science 
can be a devout and devoted man of God. Indeed, both 
should be upon their knees before the same and only living 
God. 

We do not mean, however, that religion can take the place 
of science, or that science can take the place of religion. 
Science can not satisfy the yearnings and aspirations of the 
human soul. It knows no sin, no atonement, no redemption, 
and no Redeemer. It can only guess at many other truths of 
Revelation, such as even God's love, man's exalted nature 
here and the high destiny of the redeemed in a higher life 
hereafter. But, surely, this is not against science: it is alto- 
gether true to its real nature and proper sphere. Therefore, 
the man of science must supplement his science with religion. 
He must accept the atoning sacrifice of the same blessed 
Saviour, Whom the Christian adores, if he would be saved. 
The man of God has no such relative need of science as the 
man of science has of religion. Salvation is not dependent 
upon faith in, or knowledge of, God's handiwork. It is de- 
pendent upon faith in the revealed Saviour of the Christian 
Scriptures. - 

This fact of the relative value of science and religion for 
the higher interests and needs of man, is well illustrated by 
an old story of a philosopher and a boatman. The two were 
in a boat on the lake; and, while the boatman was busy 



300 Creation Ex Nihilo 

rowing, the philosopher was as busy talking philosophy to 
him. The philosopher's conversation taking the form of ques- 
tions, he asked the boatman, "Have you read Socrates?" Upon 
receiving a negative answer, the philosopher, in his philosophic 
enthusiasm, said to the boatman, "Then one quarter of your 
life is lost." Soon the philosopher followed his first question 
by another, "Have you read Plato?" Again receiving a reply 
in the negative, the philosopher said to the boatman, "Then 
another quarter of your life is lost." And after some further 
philosophic expatiation, the philosopher asked the boatman, 
"Have you read Aristotle?" The boatman, to whom these 
names were, of course, only so many meaningless words, again 
returned a negative answer, upon which the philosopher said 
to him, "Then three quarters of your life are lost." By this 
time a gust of wind came up; and the boat, now filling with 
water, gradually began to sink. The boatman, rising from his 
seat at the oars, pointed out to the philosopher the imminent 
danger. And, beginning to take ofE his coat in order to be 
prepared for the worst, the boatman asked the philosopher, 
"Can you swim?" And, upon receiving a negative answer, 
he said to the philosopher, "Then the whole of your life is 
lost." 

The splendid reasoning of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, 
were indeed a source of great intellectual pleasure to the 
philosopher. But, when the boat began to sink, his knowledge 
of the speculations of these ancient Greek sages could not 
save him from drowning. And, while the boatman truly 
missed much of the delights of intellectual stimulation, by 
not being able to think the thoughts of those ancient reasoners 
after them, his safety depended alone upon his ability to swim. 

So, while science and philosophy have their truly great value 
for man in his present physical environment, no scientific at- 
tainments, nor any amount of philosophic speculations, can 
save his undying soul. Faith in the appointed Saviour of the 
Soul, or that appointed Saviour Whom we grasp by faith, 
alone can do that. Thus, here, too, the spheres of science and 
religion are totally different. The former has to do with 
man's physical life and his physical environment here ; the 
latter has to do with man's spiritual life here and his spiritual 
destiny and environment hereafter. And yet, these two can 
truly, and should, co-exist, as man is both physical and spiritual. 



Conclusion: No Real Conflict 301 

Both are necessary, the one in the physical sphere, the other in 
the spiritual sphere. But this necessity is not one of equal 
degree. And, therefore, if a choice between the two were 
necessary, upon the supposition that the two could not co- 
exist, or that the one excluded the other, one's immeasurably 
more enduring interests would lie in the choice of religion. 
However, as already pointed out, the two can co-exist. And, 
as both ultimately rest upon faith, the scientist and the Chris- 
tian should here, as well as in their goal, find a common 
unifying principle. And, surely, the scientist can not deny 
that true religion ultimately leads to knowledge, any more 
than the Christian can deny that true science leads to knowl- 
edge. Hence, the one should be a Christian scientist, while 
the other can be a scientific Christian. 

The mistake that is often made, is to assume that science, 
and science alone, is knowledge, and knowledge alone, and 
that religion is faith alone without knowledge. Therefore, 
some men of science have professedly rejected religion, while 
some men of God have professedly rejected science. The 
former have avowedly refused to believe, and the latter have 
inadvertently refused to know. But, in the light of what we 
have just said, and of other things contained in this volume, 
it is seen that there is a legitimate place for faith in both 
religion and science, as also there is for knowledge. 



VI NATURE AND REVELATION UNITED IN TES- 
TIFYING TO THEIR COMMON ORIGIN 

The supposed conflict between Christianity and legitimate 
or true science has, therefore, no existence in reality. This, 
then, should also afford additional evidence that the Scriptures, 
which constitute the credentials of Christianity, must have 
come from the same source as that from which the universe, 
upon which science is founded, has come. Nature and Revela- 
tion agree in their testimony as to the origin of the universe. 
The evidence of both is in accord with consistent reason. 
Therefore, if nature came from God, as we have proved it 
did, then the natural inference should be that the Scriptures 
also came from God. The reason of man and the spontaneous 
faith of his yearning heart are matched alike — though not with 



302 Creation Ex Nihilo 

equal clearness and completeness — by the revelations of Scrip- 
ture and the revelations of nature. The reason of God in its 
impress upon the human soul and its counterpart in universal 
nature and in the Christian Scriptures, should indicate their 
common origin in that supreme reason of the everlasting God. 
To deny the divine origin of the Scriptures, would thus almost 
necessarily involve a denial of the divine origin of the uni- 
verse and of the human soul. And to deny the divine origin 
of the universe and of the human soul, is to end in a be- 
wildering maze of contradictions, impossibilities and absurdi- 
ties, as demonstrated in the preceding chapters, while such 
denial only deepens the profound mystery of existence. But, 
to affirm or accept the divine origin of the universe and of the 
human soul, should almost necessarily compel the affirmation 
or acceptance of the divine origin of the Scriptures. There- 
fore, as we believe we have conclusively proved the divine 
origin of the universe and of the human soul, we believe we 
have made the rejection of the divine origin of the Scriptures 
impossible. 

We hold, therefore, that, even though science of itself can- 
not resolve the great mystery of origin and existence, and 
even though it repeatedly errs in its supposed conclusions, it 
must nevertheless also redound to the glory of God. In its 
legitimate conclusions from a study of nature, it must neces- 
sarily lead the open-minded man to a deeper appreciation of 
the greatness and glory of the great Author and Lord of both 
nature and man. Therefore, the man of science, who also 
understands and accepts God's revelation of His greatness and 
love and His plan of salvation in the Scriptures, should — be- 
cause of his profounder understanding of God's works — all 
the more reverently bend his knee before that infinite and 
eternal Being, for Whom nature and Scripture are mutually 
confirmatory and reenforcing, and in a sense supplementary, 
revelations. ^ 

The reverent prayer of every true scientific investigator 
should be for both wisdom and grace. It should also be a 
prayer of genuine thanksgiving, as was that of the great 
Kepler, who in his dedication to God of his Harmony of the 
World, gave expression to the following fervent prayer; "O 
Thou, Who through the light of Nature, dost arouse in us the 
longing after the light of grace in order to exalt us into the 



Conclusion: No Real Conflict 303 

light of glory, I thank Thee, O my God and Creator, that 
Thou dost permit me to rejoice in Thy works." 

Enough has thus, we believe, been said to show not only the 
reasonableness of the Christian conception of creation and of 
the Biblical cosmogony, properly interpreted, but also the 
utter inadequacy of any other theory whatsoever to account for 
the universe. The physical universe has been proved by differ- 
ent methods and by an overwhelming accumulation of evi- 
dence to be manifestly a finite entity, and to be dependent 
from the ultimate particle to the all-comprehensive whole. 
It is thus seen necessarily to be a creature of a higher Being, 
Whom we have shown to be a transcendent spiritual Person- 
ality. It is also seen that this finite and dependent universe 
was, by that supreme spiritual Personality, called into being, 
or created ex nihilo, or without the use of any previously ex- 
isting entity or entities. We have shown that what is thus 
so conclusively deducible from the existing universe itself cor- 
responds to the unmistakable testimony of what we know as the 
Christian Scriptures. We have shown also that that trans- 
cendent spiritual Personality Whom nature thus ultimately 
reveals, is the same as the God of Revelation^ to Whom na- 
ture and Revelation are thus related as His Work and His 
Word. We may, therefore, consider our purpose in this 
volume to be accomplished. 

May this humble contribution in support of the Scrip- 
tural doctrine of creation be the means of leading many to 
the feet of the God of both nature and Revelation. May 
it lead Godward many an honest doubter and many an 
ardent searcher after truth. May it restore to an unfaltering 
faith many who have wandered away from it. And, may it 
strengthen in their faith those who have not drifted from it, 
as well as put into their hands the weapons with which to 
meet those who assail this article of their faith. And may it, 
moreover, in thus setting forth some of the wonders of the 
Creator in the creation which is His marvelous handiwork, also 
in this humble way redound to the glory of God. This is 
the devout wish and prayer of one who would ascribe all 
honor to Him Whom he delights in this humble way to serve. 



INDEX 



Absolute, the, 25, 8sff., 237 

not limited by relation, 93ff., 237S. 

as cause, 185 

all life from life, 49 
Absolute creation, 21 

three acts of, 283 
Absolute destruction, 21, 28 
Adaptations in nature, evidences of 
design, 246, 266S. 

of everything to everything else, 267 
Affinity, Chemical, 193 

law of, 246ff. 
Alcyone, as supposed central sun, 105 
Aliotta, on transcendental nature of 
life, 41 

on view-point in science, 175 
Alpha Centauri, 129 
Alpha particles, 202, 205, 261 
Alpha rays, 202 

Annihilation, 172, 176, i87ff., 215, 
221, 232 

the idea of, a transcendental one, 

2lff. 

Anthropomorphism and anthropopa- 
thism, a necessity of human con- 
ception and language, 24, 25 
Anti-theistic, materialism, 29ff. 
Apex of sun's way, 107, 108, 119 
Arcturus, velocity of, 120, 121, 124 
Aristotle, on Plato's definition of 

man, 37 
Arrhenius, Svante, on eternity of 
matter, energy and life, 16 
on extra-terrestrial origin of life, 

42 ff. 
against spontaneous generation, 48 
theory of unlimited universe, 76, 

77 
on ceaseless adjustment of energy, 

169 
on difficulty of an eternal evolution, 

182, 183 
on size of electron, 253 
Asa, meaning of, 284 
Astronomy, i02ff. 
Atheism illustrated, 295 ff. 
Atomic theory, explained, i92ff. 
fatal to pantheism, 194 
universe temporal according to, 

^94 , , . 

an argument for design, 243 
Atoms, created products, 194 
weight of, 243 
lands of, 243 



Atoms, structure of, 21 iff., 252 
union of, 243, 246 
in ceaseless motion, 250, 261 
miniature stellar systems, 252 

Average velocity of stars, ii9ff. 

Avogadro, law of gases, 251 

Bacon, Francis, dictum on knowledge 
of philosophy, 74 

Baer, Karl Ernst von, a believer, in 
later life, 73 

Bain, Alexander, theory as to sub- 
stance, 3 1 
on material origin of life and mind, 
62 

Ball, Sir Robert, on nebular hypothe- 
sis, 30 
on dark bodies, 116 
on space, 164, 165 

Bara, meaning of, 283, 284 

Becquerel and his rays, 201 
nature of rays, 201 

Beginning, present universe had a, 
70, 180, i86ff., 232, 279, 283ff. 
evidence of, from incompleteness 

of evolution, iSoff. 
evidence of, from Scripture, 279, 
283 

Bergson, Henri, on life as more than 
matter, 39 
a philosopher's confession as to ulti- 
mate origins, 294 

Berkeley, Bishop, conception of mat- 
ter, 190, 195 

Beta, rays, 202; particles, 203ff., 261 

Bickerton, A. W., on development as 
an eternal process, 16 

Bigelow, S. Lawrence, on conserva- 
tion of energy, 58 
on conservation of matter, 59 

Blindness, an illustration of man's 
limitations, 289ff. 

Boatman and philosopher, relative im- 
portance of religion and science, 
299ff. 

Bode's law of planetary distances, 248 

Boscovich, on nature of matter, 195 

Bragg, on X-rays, 201 

Brahma, 15 

Brunhes, M. Bernard, rejects law of 
conservation of energy, 174 

Buchner, Carl, on material origin of 
life and mind, 62 
on an eternal tiniverse, 76 



305 



3o6 



Index 



Buffon, on potentiality in organisms, 

241 
Butler, Samuel, on design, 239 

Calderwood, Henry, Hamilton's letter 

to, 103 
Cathode rays, 203; Cathode particles, 

261 
Cause, definition of, 83 
absolute, 185 ff. 

see First Cause and secondary 
causes 
Centauri, alpha, 129 
Centre-of-£orce theory of matter, 
195 ff. 
Will necessary to make it work, 

196 
universe temporal according to, 196 
Centre of universe, theory as to, 

losff. 
Chance, objection answered, 97 

no explanation of mechanism of 

nature, 233 
a word to hide ig^norance, 269 
Changes in configurations of constel- 
lations, 120 
Chapman, on number of fainter stars, 

112 
Chemical affinity, 193, 246ff. 
Chemical elements, see Elements 
Chemical union, cause of, 211 

design in, 246 
Chemical valency, cause of, 249 
Chemistry, development of, 192 
Christian, the, as scientist, 292, 298 
Clausius, mechanical theory of heat, 

168 
Clerk-Maxwell, on indestructibility of 
matter, 27, 28 
on pressure of light, 217 
on molecule as a manufactured ar- 
ticle, 244 
Coal sack theory, 150 
Cohn, Ferdinand, theory of life's 

origin, 43 
Colors, cause of, 264 
Conclusions, unwarranted, a cause of 

conflict, 294flf. 
Conditioned, the mind, igff., 96, 
289ff., 293fl. 
the universe, 20, 7sff. 
a, not self -existent or eternal, 56 
Configuration of constellations, 

changes in, 120 
Conflict, no, between science and Rev- 
elation, 287ff. 
apparent, due to unproved prem- 
ises, etc., 294 
Consciousness, not due to physical 

processes, 66 
Consciousness and experience, not the 

measure of reality, 25, 289!?. 
Conservation of energy, s8ff. 
a proof of creation ex nihilo, 59 
law questioned, 171; law examined, 

i73ff. 
law not established, 230, 231 



Conservation of matter, 57ff. 
a proof of creation ex nihilo, 59 
law disproved, 205 ff., 213, 224, 231 
Consolidation, theory of stellar, 171 
Constant, matter or mass and energy 

not, 210, 213, 220, 223ff., 231 
Constellations, changes in configura- 
tions, 120 
Continuous medium, I98ff. 
Coronium, discovery of element fore- 
cast, 248 
Corpuscle, nature of, 209ff. 
Corpuscular nature of positive elec- 
tricity, 212 
Correlation, of mind and the uni- 
verse, 156, 163 
of time and space, 135, i6i 
of finiteness and dependence, 56jfiF., 

166 
of energy and matter, 177, 213, 

220, 223fif., 255, 266 
of nature and Revelation, 286ff. 
Cosmological theorems of Haeckel, 75 
Cosmozoic hypothesis, 42ff. 

inadequate, 4sflf. 
Creation, not a limitation of the Ab- 
solute, 95; purpose of, 274flf. 
mediate and immediate, 27 iff.; abso- 
lute, 21 
Creation ex nihilo, idea transcenden- 
tal, ipff. 
man's limitation as to conception 

of, i9ff. 
man's limitation as to expression 

of, 24ff. 
true meaning of, 21, 280 
three acts of, 283 
Creative divinity of monism, 225ff. 
Creator, greatness of, 152, 153 

not limited by physical laws, 272 
Critical velocity of stars, i2iff. 

and the law of gravitation, 123 
Crookes, Sir William, on radiant mat- 
ter, 203, 218 
Crystallization, compared with living 

organism, 38 
Curie, Mme., discovery of radium, 
201 
on heat of radium, 204 
on generation of radium family, 205 
Cyclic evolution, theory of, i83ff. 
Cygni, 61 (star), 104 

Dalton, atomic theory, 192 

Darwin, Charles, on need of creative 

Divinity, 68, 69 
Darwin, Erasmus, on potentiality in 

organisms, 241 
Darwinism, 42, 43 
Deity, absolute freedom of, 236 

necessary back of evolution, 182, 

235 
necessary back of every motion and 

adaptation, 263, 267, 269 
Haeckel's necessity of, 278 
Delta Lyrae, as apex of sun's way, 
107 



Index 



307 



Delta rays, 203 

Democritus, theory of repeating uni- 
verses, 183 
atomic theory, 192 
Demonstration, of extent of universe 
from actual amount of light re- 
ceived, i28ff., 144 
Density of star-distribution, 117, 129 
as basis of determining extent of 
universe, ii7ff. 
Dependence, an evidence of creation, 
as against self-existence, 56 
an evidence of finiteness, 75ff. 
simultaneous or synchronous, 77ff. 
no series of, infinite, 78 
successive or chronological, 8off. 
Derzhavin, on God's greatness, 153 
on man's greatness, 154 
on God's existence, 281 
Descartes, dictum on personal exis- 
tence, 39, 63, 281 
conception of matter, 190, 195 
Design, implies creation, 23 3 if. 
unity of, 234 

in every living organism, 239ff. 
objection to term answered, 236ff. 
in inorganic nature, 242!!. 
in chemical union, 246 
in atomic and molecular motions, 
. 250 

in electronic motions, 254 
in energy of universe, 259ff. 
in every vibration and adaptation, 

263 
to infinitesimal details, 267 
in provisions of sex, 240, 270 
Determinism of materialism, 52 
confusion in moral order, 53 
Development, monistic, Haeckel on, 
16 
as an eternal process, Bickerton 

on, 16 
of man's powers, 276 
Devolution, the great moving princi- 
ple, 208 
Disintegration, the cause of radioac- 
tivity, 204.fi. 
probably true of all elements, 208, 
209 
Dissipation, of energy, 168 

of heat, 169, 170 
Distribution of stars, 11 iff., 130 
Divinity, monism's creative, 22SfF. 
a supreme Deity necessary, 228ff., 
262 
Dobereiner, "triads," 247 
Doppler's principle, 119 
Dualism, philosophic, 64ff. 
DuBois-Keymond, a dualist, 65 
a believer in matured life, 73 
on limitation of knowledge, 293 
Duncan, Robert Kennedy, on mate- 
rialism's explanation of organic 
nature, 36 
on life as more than matter, 39 
on necessity of gmding Intelli- 
gence, 68 



Eddington, A. S., on gradual decrease 

in density of star-distribution, 

112, 113 
on density in stars, 117 
Electrical theory of matter, 2ooff. 
universe temporal according to, 

215. 
Electricity, negative element in, 210 
positive element in, 2iiff. 
viewed as material in nature, 214 
Electron, of beta rays, 202 

number and size, 202, 253, 254 

nature of, 209ff., 253 

alike in all substances, 209, 210, 

255 
not a constant quantity, 210 
and electricity, 2ioflF., 254!!. 
and the ether, 212, 213 
viewed as material, 214 
and the "Periodic Law," 249 
like infinitesimal star of atomic 

world, 252 
revolutions of, 252flF. 
an element of all matter, 255 
energy of, 260 
velocity of, 261 
Electronic theory of electricity, 2ioff., 

245, 254 
Elements, chemical, 193, 243 
radioactive, 205 
disintegration of all, 208 
sarne in earth and stars, 24s 
their _ constitution an evidence of 

design, 246 
"Periodic Law" of, 247!?. 
forecast by "Periodic Law," 248 
Emanation, theory of, 17, 22, 194 
End, universe to have an, i68ff., 187, 

188, 220, 223ff., 231, 232 
Energy, vast, in universe, law of 

conservation of, 58!?. 
not from matter, 61 
dissipation and transmutation of, 

i69ff. 
ceaseless adjustment of, 169 
finite in amount, 169, 178 
tendency toward equalization, 170 
law of conservation questioned and 

examined, 171, i73ff-; disproved, 

176, 215 
real definition of, 174, 175 
not an entity in itself, 175 
potential, 176 
primal source of, 177 
relation to matter, 177, 213, 220, 

223fi., 231, 255 

in radium, 204, 261 
intra-atomic, 221, 260 
ultimately not conserved, 176, 215 
relation to the ether, 225 
an evidence of design, 259ff. 
of hydrogen molecules, 259 
in chemical union, 259 
vast latent, 260 
of electronic motions, 260 
Energy, life and mind, according to 
materialism, 36 



3o8 



Index 



Entities, transcendent, not within 
sphere of consciousness and ex- 
perience, 289 

not objects of scientific search, 291 
Entrophy, 169 
Equation of universe, 33 

God-factor necessary, 33 
Equilibrium, tendency toward, 170 
Erwin, Marion, on light interference, 
14s 

on supposed other universes, 146, 
147 

on unlimited number of stars, 157 

on matter and space, 158 

on granular nature of electricity, 
212 
Eternity of universe, Haeckel on, 22, 
75, 76, lOI 

Arrhenius on, 16 

Bickerton on, 16 

Saleeby on, 17 

Plate on, 57 

Smith on, 76 

Biichner on, j6 

Soddy on, 184 

Martin on, 184 
Ether, by nature finite, 161, 221 

as realm of energy, 186 

and the electron, 212, 213 

a necessary postulation, 216 

nature of, 2i6ff. 

theory of matter, 2i6ff. 

theories of, 217, 221 

granular, 217, 221 

and wireless telegraphy, 217, 264 

density of, 219, 222 

universe temporal according to 
ether theory, 220 

the basis for gravitation, 221 

relation to energy, 225 

monism's creative divinity, 225 

theory of, monism's article of 
faith, 227 

waves, 263 ff. 

and matter correlated, 266 
Etheric nature of matter, 219 
Etheron, 219, 222; size of, 222 

not a constant quantity, 224 

the possibly ultimate element of all 
matter, 255 
Euclidean space, i62ff. 
Events, all, connected, 89ff. 
Evolution, as creation, i6ff. 

no eternal, possible, i78ff. 

limits of, an evidence of temporal- 
ity' ^79 , , , . 

incompleteness a proof of a begin- 
ning, 180 

does not eliminate necessity of God, 
182, 271 

theory of cyclic, i83flF. 

no cyclic, eternal, 184 

not possible to an infinite, 234 

an evidence of finiteness, 234 

no, without involution, 235 

a possible modus operandi, 295 

must not eclipse God, 295 



Existence, not limittu oy our concep- 
tions, 274 

Experience and consciousness not the 
measure of reality, 25, 2%gS.. 

Explosive, the earth a potential, 261 

Extent of universe, 117, I22ff., 

for star cross-sections to equal stars, 

i28ff., 132 
to make heaven blaze with light, 

I28ff., I36ff. 
for projection of stars to cover 

celestial sphere, I36ff. 
for heaven to blaze, from actual 

light received, 141, 143 
determined from light received, 

144 
Eye, adapted to ether waves, 266 

Faculties, not sufiicient to exhaust 

reality, 291 
Faith, in God, correlated with real- 
ity, 297ff. 
necessary in science, 298ff. 
the highway to knowledge, 298 
Faraday, Michael, theory as to com- 
mon origin of forces, 89 
on nature of matter, 195 
Fatalism of materialism, 52 
Father, God as, 275 
Fichte, conception of matter, 190, 

19s 
Finite, the physical universe proved 
to be, ^sff., loolf., i28flf., 144 
any multiplication of numbers or 

masses finite, 154 
matter proved, 160 
ether, 161, 221 
matter plus ether, 161, 223 
occupied space, 162 
any entity composed of parts, 165 
space, 166 

the, necessarily dependent, s6ff., 
166 
First Cause, necessarily a unity, 

S9ff. 
the only real cause, 83 
a necessary postulate of reason, 

84 
deductions as to the, 87 
cannot get away from, 88ff. 
partially knowable, 88 
a supreme Personality, 90 
all energy from the, 92 
see God of Scripture and also Per- 
sonality 
Fiske, John, on transcendent origin 
of soul, 66 
on temporal nature of universe, 

179, 180 
on design in organisms, 241 
on secondary causes, 273 
Flint, Robert, on limitations of sci- 
ence, 287 
Foot prints, tracing Creator's, 106, 

249, 273) 292, 299 
Franklin, theory of electricity, 210 



Index 



309 



Freedom, aosolute in creative Deity, 

236 
Feuerbach, atheism of, 31 

Gallium, discovery of, 248 

Ganmia rays, 203ff. 
relation to X-rays, 203 

Gas, Avogadro's law of pressure, 251 

Genealogy of lead, 205 ff. 

Generations of radium family, 205 ff. 

Gerber, on velocity of gravitational 
action, 80 

Germanium, discovery of, 248 

Gleditch, Ellen, on half-life period of 
radium, 207 

God of Scriptures, unconditioned, 21 
His existence certain, 54, 98, 167 
identical with ultimate Cause of 
universe, 167, 225, 274, 286, 303 
His methods transcendent, 282 
existence implied in Scripture, 282 
absence of miraculous as evidence 

for, 285 
science as witness for, 29 iff., 297 
the centre of reality and truth, 294 

God-factor, necessary for equation of 
universe, 33 

God-instinct, universal, 7 iff. 

Graetz, on density of ether, 219 

Granular, matter, i54ff., 192, 212 
ether, 217, 221 

Gravitation, as evidence for finite- 
ness, 79 
action not instantaneous, 79, 80 
aggregate, 12 iff. 
law applied to critical velocity, 

I23ff. 

ether as basis of, 221 
Gray, Asa, on secondary causes, 284 

on Darwinian Theory, 3 
Grindstone theory of Milky Way sys- 
tem, III 
Groombridge, 1830 (star), velocity of, 

120, 121, 124 
Grove, W. R., on everything in mo- 
tion, 250 
Guyot, Arnold, on creation, 283 

Haeckel, Ernst, on monistic develop- 
ment, 16 
on belief and science, 18 
his assumptions, 18 
on eternity of matter, 22, 23, 75 loi 
his petitio principii, 22, 23 
on anthropomorphism, 24 
on God, freedom and immortality, 

31 

on man's place in universal evolu- 
tion, 37 

on life and conservation, 40 

a deter minist, 52 

on conservation of substance, 61 

on origin of life and mind, 62 

on infinite and eternal universe, 75, 
76, lOI 

on identity of matter and energy, 
214 



Haeckel, Ernst, on nature of ether, 
2i7£F. 

on ether as creative divinity, 22sff. 
denies design in nature, 235 
on unconscious cell-souls, 240 
necessity of God, 278 
Hamiltonj Sir William, theory of 
creation, 17, 21, 22 
his fallacy, 21, 22 
on creation and the Absolute, 93, 

94 
on conception of time and space, 

100 
on universe as a finite entity, 103 
Harris, Frank, 

on multidimensional universe and 
the source of energy, 91 
Harvey, dictum as to origin of life, 

6s 
Heat, mechanical theory of, 168 

total in universe finite, 169, 187 
Heaviside, Oliver, on inertia, 210 
Helium atoms, of alpha rays, 202, 

205, 206 
Helmholtz, theory of extra-terrestrial 

origin of life, 42, 43 
Hercules, near apex of sun's way, 119 
Hertz, Heinrich, on nature of ether, 

216 
Heydweiler, on matter as a variable 

quantity, 213 
History, the scaffolding of Revela- 
tion, 282 
Hobbes, theory of matter, 197 
Humboldt, Alexander, on ultimate 

origin, 293 
Huxley, Thomas, on origin of life 
and mind, 62 
on nature of matter, 195 
on organising power, 240 
on limitations of knowledge, 274 
Hylozoism, 240 

Idealism, 191 

Immanence, Divine, 284 
illustrated by miracles, 10 
special, 234, 272, 273 

Incarnation, the, 9, 268 

Inertia, not a constant quantity, 210 

Infinite, an, motionless, 122 

numbers and masses cannot consti- 
tute an, i54ff. 
series, 156 

matter not, I57f 160 
not composed of parts, 165 
revolving universe not, 198 
no development to an, possible, 234 

Infinitesimal beings, man's limitations 
illustrated, 262, 295 ff. 

Inorganic nature, materialism's ex- 
planation inadequate, 28ff. 
design in, 242ff. 

Interference of light, objection an- 
swered, 145 

Intrinsic or intra-atomic energy, 260 

Involution and evolution, 235 

Ions, mass of, 211 



3IO 



Index 



Janet, design and final causes, 240 
Jesus, method of raising Lazarus, 237 
and the philosopher, 278 

Kent, Immanuel, modification of 
views, 73 
driven to First Cause, 84 
on finite or infinite universe, 10 1 
en space, 157 
on phenomena, 189 
Kapteyn, J. C, on motions of stars, 
107 
on distribution of stars, 11 1 
Kaufmann, on variation of mass, 210 
Kelvin, Lord (Sir William Thomp- 
son), on extra-terrestrial origin 
of life, 42, 43 
against spontaneous generation, 47 
on science and creative power, 68 
on universe a finite entity, 102, 

125, 126 
on stellar velocities, 124, 125 
theory of matter, 197 
on density of ether, 219 
Kepler, prayer of, 302 
Kerner, on vital force, 240 
Knowable and unknowable, meaning 

of, 86 
Knowledge, limitations of, 25, 274, 

290, 291 
Kuhns, Oscar, on man as a micro- 
cosm, 72 

Labor de, on heat of radium, 204 
Lamarck, on potentiality in organ- 
isms, 241 
Lambert, on central sun, 105 
Language, limitations of, 24fiE. 
Laplace, Celestial Mechanics without 
God, 30 
a determinist, 52 
on velocity of gravitational action, 

Larmor, on electron, 213 

Lavoisier, A. L., law of conservation 

of matter, 57 
Law, not an evidence of eternity of 
universe, 59 
design in, 242 

motion according to fixed, 250 
versus chance, 269!?. 
not a cause, 270 ff. 
Creator not limited by physical, 
272 
Law-Giver, somewhere on throne, 268 
Lazarus, method in raising of, 237 
Lead, genealogy of, 205, 206 
LeBon, Gustav, no need of God, 
32 
rejects law of conservation, 174 
on cyclic matter, 220 
on energy of chemical union, 260 
on electrical potential, 261 
on energy of cathode particle, 261 
LeConte, Joseph, on philosophic dual- 
ism, 6s 
Leucippus, on atomic theory, 192 



Liebig, against spontaneous genera- 
tion, 47 
Life, materialism's explanation of, 
36 

Spencer's definition of, 36 

more than matter, 39 

not a form of energy, 40 

transcendent nature of, 40 

physical explanation and Deity, 42 

extra-terrestrial origin theory, 42!?. 

spontaneous generation of, dis- 
proved, 47 ff. 

not from matter, 61 

from a spiritual source, 67ff. 
Light, stellar, an evidence of finite- 
ness, i26ff. 

principle of light evidence, 128 

a demonstration, i28ff., 144 

number of stars and extent of uni- 
verse necessary, to blaze, i28ff., 
132 

amount of light received from stars 
and sun, 141 

supposed interference of, 145 

pressure of, 43 ff., 217 

cause of, 263 

velocity of, 263 

waves of ether and of, 263ff. 
Limitation, of human conception, 
igff., 96 

of language, 24ff. 

of knowledge, 26, 293 

to the Absolute no, 9sff. 

of physical science, 287 

man's, illustrated, 2893, 
Livingstone, David, universality of 

belief in God, 72 
Locke, John, conception of matter, 

190, 195 
Lodge, Sir Oliver, on life, 48 

on spontaneous generation, 48 

on living organism, 51 

a dualist, 65 

on inertia, 210 

on electron, 213, 253 

on conservation of matter, 230 

on design, 235, 239 

on secondary causes, 27^ 

on conservation and Deity, 284 

on human speculation, 296 
Loeb, Jacques, theory of life, 41 

on spontaneous generation, 47 
Lombroso, Cesare, a dualist, 65 
Lotze, conception of matter, 190 
Lucretius, on atomic theory, 192 
Lyra, at apex of sun's way, 119 

Mach, Ernst, on existence of the soul, 
64 

McKendrick, a dualist, 66 

Maedler, on central sun, 105 

Magnetons, 253 

Magnitudes, ratio of stars for succes- 
sive, 112 

Man, a microcosm, y2, 73 
littleness and greatness of, I53ff'» 
268 



Index 



311 



Man, as key to universe, 275 
his place in natural world, 275 
his place in spiritual world, 276 
a comparatively infinitesimal being, 

296 
Mansel, Dean, on First Cause, 85 

on the Absolute as cause, 94 
Martin, Geoffrey, on origin of thought 

and consciousness, 67 
on cyclic evolution, 184 
on disintegration of radioactive 

substances, 205 
Martineau, James, on Spencer's fal- 
lacies, 86 
Mass, a variable quantity, 210, 213, 

224 
Materialism, 18 

explanation of universe, 28flF. 
primary assumption, 28, zc, 
method and spirit anti-theistic, 29ff. 
premises matters of scientific faith, 

32 
questions unanswered by it, 34 
concessions, 35 
necessary fatalism, $2 
determinism of, 52 
Materialists, as determinists, 52 
Mathematics, use of, 12 
Matter, not co-eternal with spirit, 

55 
alone not eternal, 56ff., 70 
law of conservation of, S7ff. 
not the cause of energy, life and 

mind, 61 
more than, in universe, 6^0.. 
inadequate as a cause, 65 
granular in nature, I54ff., 192, 

212 
aggregate, finite, i54ff.> 160 
less than space, 157 
compared with space, isSflf. 
relation to energy, 177, 213, 220, 

223ff., 231, 255 
not eternal, 182, 232 
temporal by nature, 1895. 
unknown directly, 189, 190 
definition difficult, 190 
idealistic conception of, 190 
atomic or particle theory, 1923. 
centre-of-force theory, igsff. 
vortex-atom theory, i97ff. 
electrical theory, 20off. 
"radiant," 203, 218 
ultimately not conserved, 205 flE., 

213, 220, 224, 231, 25s 
ether theory of, 2i6ff. 
states of, 218, 219 
etheric nature of, 219 
cyclic nature of, 221 
monelectronic or monetheronic 

constitution, 256 
and ether correlated, 266 
Mayer, Robert, law of conservation 

of energy, 58 
Means, Creator's use of, denied, 236 
Mechanists rare among philosophers, 

39 



Melotte, on fainter stars, 112 
Mendeleef, on granular nature of 
ether, 217 
on "Periodic Law," 248 
Mercury, 80 

Meyer, Lothar, on size of molecules, 
244 
on properties of elements, 247 
Meyers, Frederic, on relation between 
physical and spiritual universes, 
91 
Microscope, power of, 245, 254 
Milky Way system, 104 
described, 11 iff. 
grindstone theory, iii 
Mill, John Stuart, definition of cause, 
83 
theory of matter, 195 
denies Creator's use of means, 

236 
on design, 236ff. 
concession as to design, 246 
Milton, John, theory of creation, 

17 
Mind, conditioned nature, igff., 96^ 
2895., 293ff. 
sphere limited, 20 
materialism's explanation, 36 
not from matter, 61 
from spiritual source, 67ff. 
the finite, and the finite universe, 
correlated, 156 
Miniature universe, atoms and mole- 
cules as, 252, 257ff.; illustrated, 
256ff., 262 
Miracle, definition, 10 

fundamental or primal, 10 
absence of, as evidence for un- 
changing God, 285 
Mivart, St. George, on origin of soul 
and body, 68 
on First Cause, 90 
on design in organisms, 241 
on secondary causes, 273 
on transcendence of God's methods, 
282 
Modus operandi, law as a, 269 

secondary causes as, 272 
Molecules, 243 

their structure and design, 244, 

257ff. 
size of, 244 
in ceaseless motion, 250 
like miniature universe, 2S7ff. 
Moleschott, on origin of life and 

mind, 62 
Monelectronic constitution of mat- 
ter, 256 
Monism, creative divinity of, 225 flF. 
]Monistic development, 16 
Moore, Benjamin, on infinite Intelli- 
gence, 268 
Motion of stars, i04ff. 
proper, 107, 119 
parallactic, 118 
real, 119 
primal, 121 



312 



Index 



Motions of molecules and atoms, 250, 

261 
Multidimensional space, finite, i64flf. 

Napoleon, on Laplace's Celestial Me- 
chanics, 30 
Natural selection, 238 
Nature, uniformity of, 89 
deification of, 30 
not a living organism, soff. 
unity of, 89, 245 
correlation of, with mind, 156 
in agreement with Revelation, 

28s ff. 
and Revelation, common origfin of, 
3oiff. 
Nebulae, not other universes, 149 
Nebular hypothesis, only theory, 30 
Necessity, term not applicable to 
Deity, 236fl. 
doctrine of, self -contradictory, S2ff. 
Negative electricity, element of, 210 

granular nature, 21 off. 
Newcomb, Simon, on extent of uni- 
verse, 102, 122, 126 
on apex of sun's way, 107 
on light ratios, 113 
on critical velocity, 121 ff. 
on stellar motions, 122 
on light from stars and sun, 141 
on multidimensional space, 164 
on history of a star, 181 
on duration of matter, 231 
Newlands, John, on arrangement of 

elements, 247 
Newton, Sir Isaac, on nature as a 

living organism, 51 
Newtonium, discovery of element, 

forecast, 248 
Non-Euclidean geometry, i63ff. 
space finite according to, 164 

Objections answered as to relation 

of Creator, 93ff. 
as to potentiality of space and 

time, 96, 10 1 
as to chance, 97 
as to law, 97 
as to spirit's action upon matter, 

as to light interference, 145 
as to design in nature, 244ff. 
Organic nature, materialism's expla- 
nation as to, 35ff. 
materialism's explanation as to life 
and mind, 36 
Organism, life-pervaded, and inani- 
mate crystallization, 38 
theory of nature as a living, soff. 
design in living, 239ff. 
Origin of universe, theories of, isff. 
Rig- Veda on, 15 

according to philosophic science, 16 
science not concerned with, 292ff. 
Ostwald, William, on energy versus 

matter, 215 
Owen, on design in organisms, 241 



Paley, argument for design, 238, 239 
Panentheism, 19 
Panextheism, 19 
Panspermia, 42ff. 

theory inadequate, 45 ff. 
Pantheism, 18 

cannot stand with atomic theory, 
194 
Paralysis, impending in nature, 168 
Parsec, use of, 117, 129 
Parson, A. L., on structure of atom, 

Pasteur, rejects spontaneous genera- 
tion, 47 
Penetration of rays of radium, 203 
"Periodic Law," 247ff. 

an evidence of design, 247, 249 
and undiscovered elements, 248 
and arrangements of electrons, 249 
Perrin, on size of molecules, 244 
Personality, creation by a, 9off., 145, 
156, 167, 229, 249, 259, 269, 273, 
288, 303 
necessitated by latest science, 259 
identical with God of Scripture, 
225, 274, 286, 303 
Phenomena, Kantian conception of, 

189 
Philosopher and boatman, illustrating 

religion and science, 299ff. 
Philosopher's stone, 256 
Philosophers not mechanists, 39 
Philosophy, sphere of, 293 
relation of science to, 293 
a witness for truth, 297 
Pickering, E. C, on Milky Way, 112 
Pitchblende, a source of radium, 201 
Plate, Professor, concession as to 
Law-Giver, 35 
on eternity of matter, 57 
Plato, traditional definition of man, 
36 
conception of matter, 190 
Pleasure and pain, design in, 240 
Pleiades, 105, 148 

Poincare, M. Henri, on velocity of 
gravitational action, 79 
on non-Euclidean geometry, i63ff. 
rejects law of conservation, 174 
on so-called chance, 270 
Pope, Alexander, on nature as living 

organism, 51 
Positive electrical element, 21 iff. 

corpuscular in nature, 212 
Postulates, three, as to original ex- 
istence, ssff. 
two fundamental, of Scripture, 
28off. 
Prayer of Kepler, 302 
Premises, of materialism, 32ff. 

unproved, cause of conflict, 295 
Pressure, of light, 43ff., 217 

of ether, 43ff., 217, 222 
Printing press, illustration, 295 
Problem of three bodies, i63ff. 
"Protyle,'* supposed evolution from 
249 



Index 



313 



Prout, on hydrogen as basic element. 

Purpose of creation, 274 
spiritual in nature, 275 
Purpose of Scripture, 281 
Pyknatoms, 219 

Questions unanswerable by material- 
ism, 34 

"Radiant" matter, 203, 218 
Radioactivity, 201 

cause of, 204 
Radium, steps in discovery of, 20off. 

rays of, 203 

generations of family, 205 ff. 
Ramsay, Sir William, on generations 
of radium family, 205 

on decomposition of all elements, 208 
Ranyard, A. Cowper, on light of stars, 

127 
Rays, Roentgen or X-, 200 

nature of X-rays, 201 

of radium, 202 

alpha, 202; beta, 202 

gamma, 203; delta, 203 

recoil, 203 
Reality, knowledge not the measure 

01, 25, 274, 290ff. 

not limited to experience and con- 
sciousness, 25, 289ff. 
transcendent, not object of scien- 
tific search, 291 
ultimately unattainable, 297 
Reason of God, reflected in man and 

nature, 297 
Reason of man, limitation and sphere 
of, 26 
correlated with reality, 297 
Recoil rays, 203 
Reiman, on non- Euclidean systems, 

164 
Reinke, a believer, in later life, 73 
Relation, not a limitation of the Ab- 
solute, 94flF., 237ff. 
Religion and science, relative impor- 
tance, 299 
illustrated, 299flF. 

faith and knowledge in both, 301 
Revelation, in agreement with na- 
ture, 286 
no real conflict between science 

and, 287ff. 
sphere of, different from that of 

science, 291 
steps back of secondary causes, 292 
from same source as nature, 301, 
302 
Revolution, of stars, an evidence of 
finiteness, io8ff. 
of electrons, 2S2ff., 257ff. 
Reynolds, on density of ether, 222 
Richter, H. E., theory of extra-ter- 
restrial origin of life, 42 
Rig- Veda, theory of origin of uni- 
verse, IS 
Roentgen, discovery of X-rays, 200 



Russell, Bertrand, on faith as basis 

of knowledge, 298 
Rutherford, on rays of radium, 202 
on disintegration, 205 
on generations of radium family, 

205, 207 
on half-life period, 207 
on positive nucleus, 252 

Sabatier, M., rejects law of conser- 
vation, 174 
Saleeby. on eternity of universe, 17 
Scaffolding, physical universe, for 
spiritual creation, 275 
human history, for Scripture, 282 
Scandium, discovery of, 248 
Schafer, E. A., on natural origin of 

life, 48, 49 
Schopenhauer, atheism of, 31 
Schwarzschild, on radiation pressure, 

Science, use of theories of, 11 
no conflict between religion and, 

167, 287 
theories outgrown, 173 
as a witness for God, 288, 302 
sphere of, different from that of 

Revelation, 291 
not concerned with origin of na- 
ture, 292ff. 
deals only with secondary causes, 

292 
relation to philosophy, 293 
man's place in, 295 
a witness for truth, 297 
faith necessary in, 298ff. 
and religion, relative importance, 

299ff. 
not all of knowledge, 301 
Scientific faith, materialism's, 32 
Scientists, physical, not all mechanists, 
39 
can be devoutly Christian, 292, 298, 
302 
Scriptures, a confirmation of evi- 
dence from nature, 277 
testimony on creation ex nihilo, 279 
two fundamental postulates, 28off. 
purpose of, 281 

in agreement with nature, 285 ff. 
Secondary causes, law of, illustrated, 
81 
all series of, finite, 83 
linked together in providence, 93 
the media of Deity, 98 
use of, 27iff., 279 
First Cause present in all, 272 
as a modus operandi, 272 
Seeliger, on gravitation as invariable, 

80 
Sex, design in, 240, 270 
Shakespeare, on man's greatness, 154 

on temporal universe, 180 
Size, of molecules and atoms, 244, 245 

of electrons, 202, 2535. 
Skepticism, scientific, as to spiritual 
entities, 295 



314 



Index 



Smith, Orlando J., on eternal uni- 
verse, 76 
Snyder, Carl, on universe as a finite 
entity, 102 

on mystery of creation, 293 
Soddy, Frederick, on law of conser- 
vation, 63 

on cyclic evolution, 184 

on disintegration, 205, 208 

on generations of radium family, 
205 

on energy of ions, 261 
Soul, Mach on existence of, 64 

a spiritual entity, 288 
Space, objection answered, 96, loi 

correlated with time, 135 

greater in extent than matter, 157 

compared with matter, i58ff. 

inhabited by one star, 159 

extent of, i6off. 

occupied by stars, not infinite, 161 

occupied by matter and ether not 
infinite, 161 

in its totality finite, 162 

Euclidean three-dimensional, 162 

non-Euclidean multidimensional, 

164 

finite according to non-Euclidean 
geometry, 164, 165 ^ 

three-dimensional, finite, 166 
Spectroscope, 118, 193 
Spectrum, testimony as to unity, 245 

light, 263; bolometer, 264; elec- 
trical, 264 

of light and color, not the whole 
record, 290 
Spencer, Herbert, definition of life, 
36 

on origin of life and mind, 62 

on inability to explain life and 
mind, 67 

driven to Unconditioned, 85; fal- 
lacy as to Unconditioned, 86 

his scientific faith, 172; confession 
as to end of nature, 170, 172 

on limitations of evolution, 179; on 
ether possessing consciousness, 
226 

on atheistic theory, 286 
Spheres of science and religion, dif- 
ferent, 291, 292 
Spirit alone eternal, 7off. 
Spiritual universe, 91, 275 
Spontaneous generation, theory of, 
disproved, 47 ff. 

if true, a Deity still necessary, 49 
Stars, motions of, io4fi. ; drifts of, 
107 

proper motions of, 107, 119 

Vega and delta Lyrae, apex of 
sun's way, 107, 108, 119 

number of, ii6ff., 123 

distribution of, and extent of uni- 
verse, III, 117, 130 

motion and finiteness, iiBflf,^ 

parallactic motions, 118; radial, 119 

real, 119; primal, 121 



Stars, Arcturus and 1830 Groom- 
bridge, 120, 121, 124 
light of, an evidence of finiteness, 

I26ff. 

demonstration of finiteness from 

light of, i28ff. 
number necessary to blase with 

light, I28ff. 
amount of light received, 141 
extent of universe from light re- 
ceived from, 144 
Pleiades, 148 

clusters of, not other universes, 148 
space inhabited by, 159 
finite in number, 160 
Stellar consolidation, theory of, 171 
Stewart, Alfred W., on cyclic uni- 
verse, 184 
Stewart, Balfour, a dualist, 65 

theory as to relation between physi- 
cal and spiritual universes, 91 
Stoney, Johnstone, on elements light- 
er than hydrogen, 248 
Structure, of universe an evidence of 
finiteness, io8ff. 
of atoms, 21 iff,, 252ff. 
Sun, journey through space, 107 
velocity of motion, 107, 119 
amount of light from, 141 
Survival of fittest, 238 

Table of generations of radium fam- 
ily, 206 
Tait, Peter Guthrie, a dualist, 65 
theory as to relation between physi- 
cal and spiritual universes, 91 
on transmutation of energy, 170 
Telegraphy, wireless, 217, 264 
Teleology, not destroyed by Darwin- 
ian theory, 241 
and pleasure and pain, 240 
see design 
Telescope, power of, ii4ff. 
Temporal, the universe shown to be, 
75 
universe by nature, 168, 179, 187, 

188, 213, 231, 255 
matter by nature, i89ff. 
both matter and ether, 223 
Tennyson, Lord, on individuality, 64 
Theism, 240, 242 
Theories, of creation, isff. 

of science, use of, 11 
Thompson, Sir William (Lord Kel- 
vin), theory of matter, 197 
on decomposition of all elements, 

208 
on design in nature, 239 
Thomson, Sir J, J., on electron, 
209ff., 215 
on atomic energy, 261 
Thought, not from physical proc- 
esses, 67 
Tiele, C. P., on universality of re- 
ligion, 72 
Time, correlated with space, 135 
objection answered, 96, 10 1 



Index 



315 



Transcendent entities, 288ff. 

cannot affect physical sensorium, 289 

not objects of scientific search, 291 
Transmutation, of energy, i69ff. 

of elements, difficulty of, 256 
Tyndall, John, against spontaneous 
generation, 47 

on origin of consciousness, 66 

Ultramicroscope, power of, 24s, 254 
Unconditioned, God, 21 

the, 2 iff. 
Uniformity of nature, 89, 295 
Union, law of chemical, 246 

"Periodic Law," 247 
Unitary system, theory of universe 

as a revolving, io4ff. 
no revolution of an infinite, 198 
Unity of universe, 233ff., 245 
of constitution, 193 
of design and purpose, 234 
Universe, conditioned, 20 

had a beginning, 70, 180, i86ff., 

232, 279, 2828. 
a finite and temporal entity, 75 ff.. 

looff. 
upper cosmic and nether infinitesi- 
mal, 87 
spiritual, 91, 275ff. 
proved a creature, 99 
finite as a unitary system, losff. 
theory of revolving, i04ff. 
finite as a star republic, no 
extent of, 117, 125 
motionless, if infinite,^ 122, 198 
proved finite from light of stars, 

i28fT., i36ff. 
extent of, for stars to equal star 

cross-sections, i28ff., 132 
extent of, for projections to cover 

celestial sphere, I36ff. 
extent of, to blaze, from actual 

amount of light, 141, i43ff. 
possibility of, beyond ours, 147, 149, 

150, 152 
a star-cluster not an ulterior, 148 
a nebula not an ulterior, 149 
no multiplication of, infinite, 151 
magnifying the, a magnifying of its 

Creator, 152 
the finite, correlated with the finite 

mind, 156 
of matter, finite, 160 
by nature temporal, 168, i79flf., 189, 

220, 223 
Incomplete, an evidence of begin- 
ning, 180, 186 
no number of repeating, eternal, 

i83ff. 
temporal by nature of matter, i89ff. 
temporal according to theories of 

matter, i92ff, igsff, i97flf, 20off, 

231 
temporal as to both matter and 

ether, 223 ff. 
a perfect mechanism, 233flE. 
unity of, 233 ff., 245 



Universe, atoms and molecules like 
miniature, 252, 2S7ff. 
illustration of miniature, 256ff., 262, 

295 
not a fortuitous concourse of 

atoms, 271 
the scaffolding of the spiritual cre- 
ation, 27s 
Unknowable, Spencer's fallacy as to 

the, 86 
Uranium, radioactivity of ore, 201 

Variable, mass or matter and energy, 

210, 213, 220, 223ff., 231 
Vega Lyrae, apex of sun's way, 107, 

108, 119 
Velocity, an evidence of finiteness, 
108, 126 
of sun through space, 107, 119 
average, of stars, 119, 120 
of Arcturus, 120, 121 
of 1830 Groombridge, 120, 121, 124 
critical, 12 iff. 
critical, and law of gravitation, 

123ff. 

of rays of radium, 202ff, 
of atoms and electrons, 26off. 
Virchow, Rudolf, a believer, in ma- 

turer life, 73 
Vogt, J. G., on origin of life and 
mind, 62 
on etheric nature of matter, 218 
on cause of energy, 219 
Vortex-atom theory of matter, i97ff. 
Universe temporal according to, 
I98ff. 

Wallace, Alfred R., on transcendent 
nature of life, 40 
a dualist, 65 

on universe as a finite entity, 102 
on design in organisms, 240, 241 
on secondary causes, 273 
Waves of ether and of light, 263ff. 
Weber, Alfred, on Will as ultimate 

cause, 229, 230 
Weir, James, on closed energy cir- 
cuits, 58 
Western philosophic science, on eter- 
nity of matter, energy and life, 16 
Whetham, on relation of matter and 

ether, 223 
Whittaker, E. J., theories of ether, 

216 
Will, as ultimate cause, 80, 98, 187, 
229, 230, 259, 273 
back of all vibration, 265 
Wilson, G. N., on structure of atom, 

252 
Wireless telegraphy, ether in, 217, 264 
Word, testimony of, as to creation, 

277ff. 
Worlds, other, 2y6 

Wright, G. Frederick, Foreword by, 
3» 4 . 
on Genesis and science, 167 
on secondary causes, 273 



3i6 Index 

Wright, Thomas, the grindstone the- Young, Charles, on universe as a 

ory, III star-system, no 

Wundt, William Max, a believer, in on gradual decrease of star-distribu- 

later life, 73 tion, 113 

on ultimate origins, 292 on amount of light received from 

stars, 141 

X-rays, discovery of, 200 on star-clusters, 148 

nature of, 20off. on nebulae, 149 

relation to gamma rays, 203 Young, Thomas, on the ether, 217 

Young, Charles, on supposed universe- Zero of temperature, 252 

revolution, 108 Zsigmondy, the ultramicroscope, 245 



i 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Dec. 2004 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



